Disability Rights Legislation

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are satisfied with the scope of current legislation on discrimination against disabled people.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no. That is why we will be significantly extending the rights of disabled workers and job applicants in 2004, when we will also be giving improved rights to disabled customers to help them get access to goods and services.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and welcome the Chancellor's recent decision to increase the budget of the Disability Rights Commission by 14 per cent, just as I share the deep concern expressed by her Secretary of State on 10th July that,
	". . . disabled people are still seven times more likely than other people to be out of work", levels of awareness and understanding of disability are too low and barriers to inclusion too high".
	This being so—and recalling our manifesto commitments—precisely what improvements do the Government envisage in the civil and employment rights of disabled people in the months and years immediately ahead?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is right to congratulate the Disability Rights Commission on an impressive record of achievement over the past one or two years. Approximately 145,000 calls have been handled, together with 4,500 cases. The record of the DRC has been impressive. However, as I believe my noble friend has acknowledged, so has the Government's record. Not only have we extended hugely levels of financial support to disabled people through disabled person's tax credits, we have also introduced work opportunities through the New Deal for disabled people, through activities offering support in the intermediate labour markets and, above all, in the changes proposed for 2004 to remove the small firms exemption. Across a whole array of financial support, civil rights, pension opportunities and employment prospects, the Government have made sound progress.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister believe that either a law should be enacted or at least an obligation put on local authorities to ensure that all new buildings are accessible to disabled people? Furthermore, is she as horrified as I am to learn that in Portcullis House the round door knobs are extremely difficult for disabled people to open?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand that since Part M of the building regulations was introduced, all new residential buildings have had to be accessible to disabled people. However, if there is a particular aspect of Portcullis House which the noble Baroness would like me to follow up, then I shall be happy to do so.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the process by which we deal with disability legislation—that is, it tends to be a rather piecemeal approach—is one that means that, no matter how much progress we make, we always refer back to the issues? Is there not an arguable case for introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation stating that disabled people shall be conferred rights across the board as opposed to chasing backwards and forwards between departments, trying to ensure that the disabled have a slightly better deal?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the original Disability Discrimination Act 1995, warmly supported and welcomed by noble Lords, had within it plenty of headspace to allow for subsequent developments that have been brought forward through regulations. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that progress should not be measured only by another piece of primary legislation. I do not seek to anticipate the Queen's Speech, but solid progress can and is being made through secondary legislation, which is both quicker and simpler. As I said in an earlier response, the Government's record on this is impressive.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Labour Government have a good record on disability. They have achieved many fine things of which they can be very proud. But the record is not good enough, given that vast numbers of disabled people suffer discrimination every day of their lives. That can be stopped only by comprehensive legislation. Either the Government will agree that we need to introduce a comprehensive Bill—in which case, why have they not brought one forward or promised it for the next Session of Parliament?—or they disagree with the need for a Bill—in which case, why did they promise to bring forward comprehensive legislation in the last manifesto?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend knows as well as I do what was promised in the last manifesto from the Labour Government; namely, that we are now committed,
	"to extending basic rights and opportunities, as indicated in our response to the Disability Rights Taskforce".
	That is precisely what we have done. As my noble friend will know, commencing in 2004, there will be some 7 million new jobs, 600,000 disabled workers and 1.2 million firms will be brought within the DDA, either by primary legislation or through secondary legislation as we seek to abolish the small firms' exemption. That is only one example of many of the ways in which the Government are meeting their manifesto commitments. Beyond that, however, my noble friend knows perfectly well that no Minister can comment at this stage on what may or may not be in the Queen's Speech.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, when will the Government's consultation document on the transport recommendations of the DRT be published? The document was supposed to be issued a year ago. What is the justification for such a huge delay?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, part of the difficulty with regard to transportation is that some of the issues are what might be termed as "home grown". The noble Lord is right to press me on those; they affect our trains, taxis, minicabs and so forth. However, some of the more intransigent issues are associated with shipping and aviation which require action on an international basis. On those matters we are still seeking consultation.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that primary legislation is required to outlaw continuing discrimination in housing, transport and the built environment? Otherwise there will still be gaping holes in the civil rights legislation.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, quite a lot has already been done in regard to transport. From 2005, for example, all new buses must be available and readily accessible for disabled people, and for people with small children, heavy luggage and so on. We shall see also a further extension of our remit on trains. My noble friend is right. If we were to carry out a major extension of disability rights into, for example, the relationship between tenants and landlord, it would require primary legislation. I am not yet persuaded that that would be necessarily the right way to go. It would certainly have to follow extensive consultation.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, has the Minister made any progress with the situation at St John's Church Smith Square?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was delighted to be a supper guest of the trustees, chairman—I am trying to get the titles right but I know I shall get them wrong—and the senior executives of St John's Smith Square. They were anxious to expedite the issues that the noble Baroness wisely raised in the House. She has altered minds.

Lord Carter: My Lords, in the context of legislation, is my noble friend aware—I am sure that she is—of the proposals that are circulating for an equality Act and a single equality commission to deal with issues of race, gender, disability and sexual orientation? If such proposals exist, will she bear in mind that problems for the disabled relate not only to attitude but to physical problems of access to employment, buildings and transport? Will the Government bear in mind that distinction when considering such proposals.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is a very real point. Clearly there are strong views. Were we to have six commissions, this would be a foolish way to proceed. We would need to integrate them because they would be dealing with common issues. But equally, as my noble friend said, we must not overlook the distinct differences for disabled people in regard to access and so on which cannot be read across into, for example, EOC issues and CRE issues. The proposals are very much under discussion—there has not been a done deal—and it is extremely important that, whatever happens, the proud record, identified by my noble friend Lord Morris, of the newly-established DRC is not lost through rapid legislative change.

Doctors: Retirement Age

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to allow doctors to remain in National Health Service employment beyond the age of 65.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the retirement age for hospital doctors is 65. Flexibility in the system already allows for their employment after the age of 70, after which they may continue to be employed subject to the needs of the service and quality assurance. General practitioners, as self-employed, independent contractors, are removed from the medical list at the age of 70, although they can continue to practise beyond that.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that as the NHS seeks to boost its numbers and to recruit doctors from overseas, many doctors at home, who are fully fit, efficient and meet the requisite clinical standards, are not aware of the options she has described? Will she take every step to ensure that they are made aware of the opportunities open to them to continue in employment in the NHS beyond the age of 65?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, my noble friend is right, we are anxious to make as much use as possible of the excellent skills of doctors approaching retirement age. The NHS is trying very hard to become a good employer. The flexible retirement initiative was launched in July 2000. It was designed specifically to enable staff to work more flexibly towards and beyond retirement. That could include extended part-time working, exchanging a senior role for a junior role, working over the winter, and so on. These and other options are set out in the publication, Improving Working Lives for Doctors, which has been sent to no fewer than 10,000 doctors.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case, as the Audit Commission confirmed, that we have a potential retirement time-bomb on our hands in regard to general practitioners? Is the giving of options sufficient? Is not it absolutely vital that the department fashions some real financial incentives to ensure that general practitioners stay in post, particularly single practitioners in London?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is true that the Audit Commission drew attention to a shortage of GPs. One of the practical options being put in place is the "golden hello" for new GPs and for retaining GPs coming back. An extra £5,000 will be added to that to create an incentive for GPs to work in inner city areas.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, more and more GPs are retiring early for all kinds of reasons—inflexibility of work, too much pressure, and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made a very important point. Does the Minister agree that we need a comprehensive approach to keep doctors in work? They are highly qualified and we need them, both before and after the current retirement age.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Baroness's point in regard to a comprehensive package is very important. That is why Improving Working Lives for Doctors is such an important document. It sets out a clear range of options for people approaching retirement. There is a myth about doctors retiring early in the sense that the retirement age for doctors has remained constant at 62 years for the past seven years. But we want all doctors to work to their fulfilment. As part of our drive to retain GPs we have launched the delayed retirement scheme under which GPs over 60 can delay their retirement and receive an additional £2,000 a year up to £10,000. That package was closely and successfully negotiated with the BMA.

Lord Renton: My Lords, would it help the noble Baroness to know that I knew a surgeon and family doctor who performed his last operation at the age of 78? He was my father.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, this House is not the place to argue for early retirement under any circumstances. I take the noble Lord's point: there are some magnificent doctors aged over 70 who are still practising. The problem of capacity has to be addressed. An appraisal system for GPs will be introduced this year which is identical to that for hospital doctors. We are addressing competence through appraisal and through revalidation.

Lord Rea: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a particular problem will be created in certain deprived areas where primary care has been kept afloat for the past 30 or 40 years by doctors trained in South Asia who are almost simultaneously coming up to retirement age? What packages are being designed to retain doctors in deprived inner-city areas?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are conscious that there is a problem in regard to the retirement of doctors in single practices. As my noble friend says, that relates particularly to Asian doctors. I mentioned the "golden hello" payment and additional payments to doctors. We are spending £55 million on improving premises. In London, where there is a particular problem, we are looking at the potential introduction of doctors from overseas in a pilot scheme across London, which may well help the situation.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, enlarging on the noble Baroness's replies to the very relevant questions of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and that of noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, does she accept that at the root of a great deal of disaffection on the part of doctors—whether GPs or hospital doctors—and their wish to get out of service as soon as they can, is their complete frustration with NHS and hospital bureaucracy and with the endless reorganisation in the health service? These affect their working lives and remove a great deal of pleasure and fulfilment, making them want to leave the service.

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, it a real problem, and the Government have addressed it. Two reports have addressed bureaucracy: one in June 2001 and one in March this year. Clearly, doctors feel very strongly about it. A number of measures have been set out to reduce red tape which have the potential to unlock 10.3 million appointments. They will address issues such as repeat prescriptions and requests for non-medical information. We hope that these will be followed up as quickly as possible.

Asylum Seekers

Lord Chadlington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made towards meeting Home Office targets on the removal of asylum seekers whose cases have been rejected.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the number of failed asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom has increased year on year from 6,990 in 1998 to some 9,185 excluding dependants in 2001. The number removed in the financial year 2001–02 including dependants was 11,515. The target in the Spending Review 2002 PSA is the same as that in the Spending Review 2000 PSA:
	"enforcing the immigration laws more effectively by removing a greater proportion of failed asylum seekers".

Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House precisely how many bogus asylum seekers will be deported in the next 12 months?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the House would be amazed if I could give an accurate figure. It will depend on a number of factors. First, there must be a safe place to which people can be removed; so the country from which they have fled has to be normalised. We hope that Afghanistan will increasingly move into that category. Secondly, there must be effective documentation so that, when a person is removed by means of a charter flight—a method of travel that is increasingly used—he or she is accepted on arrival. Thirdly, we must be able to identify the failed asylum seekers, which is why we are increasing contact management and building up a detention estate.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in the midst of all our other preoccupations about immigration and asylum policy, the objective which is perhaps most important is that every single asylum seeker who should have asylum in this country is accorded it with the minimum of delay? Will not history judge us by our record in that respect?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree that one of the standards by which we shall be judged is the care and humanity that we apply to those making genuine asylum claims. There is good progress. As to new asylum claims, the vast majority of initial decisions are now given within two months. But history will judge us also by how we manage the challenge—faced by many countries—of large numbers of people seeking to use asylum routes for understandable, but not acceptable, economic migration.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, does that mean that the targets referred to by the Minister are not realistic in the circumstances?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the original target—which remains the current target—of removing some 30,000 failed asylum seekers a year is right. If one looks at the rate of acceptance in asylum cases, as a proportion of those applying, over time we should be seeking to remove about 30,000 a year. But we shall arrive at that point only when the other measures are in place—when it is safe to do so, when there is documentation, when transportation means are in place, and when we have the strength and ability to identify and detain failed asylum seekers. The commitment is there. The debate is about how rapidly we can arrive at it.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, it is reported that yesterday the Home Secretary made a decision that asylum seekers will no longer be allowed to apply for work after they have been in this country for six months. Is that not a mean and unfortunate decision—made at the behest of the French Interior Minister, M. Sarkozy, who is one of the more hard-line right-wing populists in European government? The increase in the speed of decision-making that the Government have been able to bring about is very welcome; but there will always be some asylum seekers whose cases are complex and difficult and in regard to whom a decision will take considerably longer. Is it not good for those people that they should be allowed the experience of working here, good for the country, and good in terms of staying in contact with asylum seekers, so that, whatever the end decision, we know where they are?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord's original suggestion is right. The employment concession was introduced in 1986 when asylum claims were rocketing upwards and the backlog of claims on which the Government could give initial decisions was becoming lengthy. The decision to withdraw it has been taken because of our success in reducing the backlog. New applicants now have their claims dealt with in far less than six months. Therefore, the employment concession is no longer necessary. A person who is accepted for asylum or granted exceptional leave to remain is entitled to work in this country.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in March 2001, the Government's target for removal of failed asylum seekers, as the Minister said, was given as 30,000 for 2001–02, rising in 2002–03 to 33,000. Does the Minister agree that the current rate for the first quarter of 2002 of approximately 1,000 a month is most disappointing? Since the Minister still adheres to the target of 30,000, can he give any indication as to when that can be achieved?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should be in danger of repeating myself. I have said why I believe that the target is still appropriate as a goal. If one looks at the ratio of non-accepted cases, over time we should get to that level. It will depend on how rapidly we can get return agreements with the countries concerned; on increasing the number of detentions; and on managing more tightly the detection of people who have been rejected for asylum. I am confident that we are making good progress, but it will no doubt take several years to get there.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will my noble friend remind the House where we are in discussions with our partners in the European Union on agreeing and implementing a common asylum policy, and on making it possible for people to claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, essentially the Dublin agreement was based on the expectation that asylum claims should be processed in the first country in which asylum seekers arrive; therefore, that should be the point at which asylum cases are heard. For reasons with which I shall not bore the House, that arrangement has not worked as well as Members on these Benches or the other side had hoped. That is why we are negotiating Dublin 2. Active discussions are taking place within the European Union to seek to increase intergovernmental co-operation to get to grips with this issue.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord—

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that it is time for the next Question.

Alcopops

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they assess the part played by alcopops in contributing to the problem of drinking by young persons.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Government are aware of the need to take action to combat alcohol misuse among young people. This issue will be examined as part of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy. The department monitors the consumption of alcopops and other drinks by young people on an annual basis.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that the majority of parents wish to encourage their teenage children to drink in moderation and safely, and that the existence of alcopops—designed to appear like lemonade; sweet, syrupy, and perhaps seductive to children—undermines the intention of parents, encourages young children to drink to excess, and therefore weakens the Government's whole policy?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I recognise that there have been concerns about alcopops for some time and I have every sympathy for parents who are struggling with the issue in relation to their children. However, we should recognise that teenage drinking levels have been increasing over the past decade and are not actually linked to alcopops. I think that the most effective action that we can take is to ensure that young people have all the available information on the harm that alcohol can cause, and have and enforce the laws that we need to stop the underage purchasing of alcohol.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, although we may not be described as young persons, I wonder whether alcopops are sold in the House?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very pleased to say that I have no idea.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, not so very long ago, a presentation was made by the doctors and young patients at a Liverpool hospital which outlined a very alarming increase in underage drinking particularly in that area, for which they laid the blame at the feet of manufacturers making and marketing what are known as alcopops? The industry, quite naturally, has always denied that alcopops are aimed specifically at children. However, it has lately been noticeable that they have changed and toned down the labelling and packaging of alcopops. Is it not revealing that a company such as Cadbury Schweppes—which has a very high moral attitude in the manufacturing and marketing of its products—will have nothing whatever to do with them?

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, that is extremely interesting. The advertising of alcopops, like that of alcohol generally, is bound by the general rules for advertising and the specific rules relating to alcohol. We are grateful for the efforts of the Portman Group in promoting responsible advertising. The fact is that we have received very few complaints about alcohol advertising overall, which I think indicates that some responsibility is being exercised. I also do not think that young people are influenced entirely by advertising. There is a cultural issue here. We have to address that, and it is very difficult.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the national alcohol strategy will be out for consultation this summer? Does she agree that the issue of young people's drinking, including alcopops, is a matter for interdepartmental awareness and action involving the departments responsible for education, health, social services and sales? Can she also confirm that the Government will develop an interdepartmental approach to the issue?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the strategy is out for consultation and will include a very strong element of intelligence about young people's drinking. We also have an interdepartmental policy in terms of the work being done by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health to promote health standards in schools. They will use the extra money that we are allocating to provide information on substance misuse, in the most effective way possible, to both schools and the community.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in 1997, the Government established a ministerial group on alcopops. How many times has this group met? What advice has it given on the availability of alcopops and the consequent effect on alcohol consumption?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have no information on the group, but I should be pleased to write to the noble Lord to give him the available information.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister taken note of the experience in Scotland, where the alcohol strategy has been out for some time, and where particular emphasis is placed on trying to discourage drinking among young people? Could not England and Wales learn from the experience of Scotland?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are on track to deliver the alcohol strategy by 2004. This week the Prime Minister announced that the Cabinet Office strategy unit would look specifically at the question of the harm done by alcohol and will report in April 2003. I am sure that there are always things that we can learn from Scotland.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement being made in another place on Northern Ireland.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who first proposed this method of proceeding. I hope that it allows the flexibility that your Lordships would wish so that all views may reasonably be heard. It does give us the advantage of flexibility. If I may, I shall trespass on your Lordships time for just a moment or two.
	On 21st May, we debated the package of recommendations of the group that I chaired on the working practices of this House. On that day, the House agreed without a vote that the report should be remitted to the Procedure Committee with the instruction to that committee to make recommendations on how to implement each proposal. I am very grateful to those who served on the Procedure Committee. Our debates were lengthy and full. I am grateful to support the report which has been produced.
	I should like, if I may, to mention one or two other matters. I would suggest to your Lordships that this is a very appropriate time for us to be putting our minds to these questions. In the past year, we have agreed to and introduced a code of conduct which is more transparent and more rigorous than that to be discovered at the other end of the building. We have agreed that it is critically important that the Opposition and Cross-Benchers should be properly resourced in this House. The Chancellor has been extremely generous in agreeing that the Conservative Front-Bench allocation should increase from about £227,000 per year to rather more than £390,000 per year; the Liberal Democrat allocation from about £68,000 to £195,000; and the Cross-Bencher allocation from £21,000 to £35,000—the latter, and the latter alone, to be backdated to April 2001. That is important because, as I have said in this Chamber before, I believe that we do need properly resourced and funded opposition. We lacked it when we were in opposition, but we have not held that against anyone. I hope that your Lordships think that that is a proper and indeed a generous approach.
	We have acquired Millbank House and Fielden House. Consequently, we are in sight of being able to provide proper accommodation and desk space for all Members. Of course, we have now also introduced the free first-class postage.
	Our fundamental work, I would suggest, is to scrutinise the executive as effectively as we can and to revise legislation as scrupulously as we can. I repeat, if I may, what I offered to the House when we discussed the group report on 21st May. It is intended to be a package. Some of the amendments today will undoubtedly, if carried, destroy the balance of the package and its fundamental integrity. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the 5th Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House, together with any amendments relating thereto, be considered in a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	The matters we are to discuss today are entirely unsuitable for discussing after 11 p.m. They engage the interests of a large number of Members of this House. I am sure that we shall all do our best to be expeditious and not to tire one another with long speeches. However, there will be a Statement and some "ponging" and "pinging" on the Education Bill.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the 5th Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House, together with any amendments relating thereto, has been committed to adjourn consideration of the report and amendments not later than 11 p.m. on Wednesday 24th July, whether or not the Committee has completed its consideration.—(Lord Lucas.)

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I advise the House not to accept the amendment. It is quite without precedent. We do not impose timetables on ourselves, nor ought we to begin to do so. This apparently innocuous small infant is capable of becoming a giant which will try to rule us. We do not want guillotines in this House as far as I am aware. This is an attempt to cut off debate at eleven o'clock tonight. It is, after all, only 10 minutes past three.
	There has been no consultation about the matter at all. The Procedure Committee has not been asked for its view. If we were to approach eleven o'clock tonight, would your Lordships really want to resume on another day, which might not be consecutive? It might even be Friday of this week or Wednesday of next week. It is not a good idea and I invite your Lordships not to support it.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not unsympathetic to the view taken by the noble and learned Lord on the proposal of my noble friend. However, I hope that he will not mind my reminding him that when we moved that the Leader's Group report be referred to the Procedure Committee the noble and learned Lord himself imposed a guillotine of a sort when he instructed, or sought to instruct—the House agreed with him—that the committee should report by 8th July. As I shall say in a few moments, I felt that that was a wholly inappropriate restraint upon the committee's deliberations.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the 5th Report of the Procedure Committee.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the 5th Report of the Procedure Committee.—(Lord Tordoff.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Lord Tordoff: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the 5th Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 148) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	Following is the report referred to:
	INTRODUCTION
	1. On 21 May 2002 the House debated a report by the Group appointed "to consider how the working practices of the House can be improved, and to make recommendations".1 The House remitted the Group's report to the Procedure Committee with an instruction to make by 8 July recommendations, to be approved by the House, to implement the report. In our 4th report to the House on 8 July we explained why we were not able to meet this deadline.2
	2. Before turning to the Group's recommendations, we remind the House that the recommendations would be subject to a trial period of two parliamentary sessions and the House itself would have to approve any continuation thereafter. At the end of the trial period the House should review how the new practices have worked and decide whether they should be continued.
	3. Many of the Group's recommendations would require extra resources: more clerks, more Hansard reporters, more committee rooms. They would also increase the workload of Members of the House, for example, in sitting on pre-legislative scrutiny and other committees. We have not been able in the time available to us to assess the full implications of these extra requirements. In some cases, it is for the Offices Committee and its sub-committees to do so. It seems to us unlikely that all the Group's recommendations can be implemented immediately. We recommend that with effect from next session (2002–03) implementation should be phased, as resources become available.
	4. In this report the Group's recommendations are printed in italics. The recommendations of the Procedure Committee are printed in bold.
	5. We now turn to each of the Group's recommendations.
	Group recommendation (a): virtually all major government bills should as a matter of course be subject in draft to pre-legislative scrutiny by Parliament (paragraph 7 of the Group's report)
	6. This is not a procedural issue. We support Group recommendation (a), provided that the quality of pre-legislative scrutiny is maintained at a high level and also that pre-legislative scrutiny committees are not required to work to unreasonably tight timetables or to consider draft bills that are incomplete. We draw attention to the resource implications, especially the number of members of the House needed to undertake additional regular pre-legislative scrutiny.
	Group recommendation (b): subject to the right of the House of Commons to determine its own procedures, bills that have received pre-legislative scrutiny in either House should, on a motion moved in the House in possession of the bill at the end of the session, be allowed to be carried-over into the next session; but if a bill that has been carried over does not reach the statute book by the end of the session following carry-over it should fall, as now (paragraph 10)
	7. The Procedure Committee endorsed the principle of carry-over in 1998.3 We recommend that the House should now take this endorsement a stage further and agree to Group recommendation (b), but only for Government bills and subject to the provisos on pre-legislative scrutiny in paragraph 6 above. At present, carry-over is restricted to bills that have not yet left the House in which they originated; eligibility of bills for carry-over is settled by informal discussion in the usual channels; and bills are carried-over by ad hoc motions. If Group recommendation (b) is implemented, as we propose, carry-over would no longer be restricted to bills that had not yet left the House in which they originated: any bill that had been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny in either House would be eligible for carry-over. Carry-over would be achieved, after discussion in the usual channels, by a motion agreed by one or both Houses, depending on where the bill had been introduced. We would expect the fact that a bill had been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny would influence significantly the judgment by the usual channels in this House on whether the bill should be carried-over.
	8. The question of the application of the Parliament Acts to a bill that is to be carried over was raised in the House's debate of 21 May 2002. In theory, the Parliament Acts could be applied to a bill which, having been received by the Lords at least one month before the end of a session, was carried-over but not passed by the end of the next session. In the case of the Lords carrying-over a Commons bill, in order to avoid the Parliament Acts being implemented, the Commons should be invited to agree, before the Lords agrees to the carry-over, to a formal direction that section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 should not apply to the bill in the ensuing session.
	Group recommendation (c): while we do not intend in any way to encroach upon the financial privileges of the Commons, a procedure should be established to enable the House to deal more effectively with Finance Bills (paragraph 12)
	9. We accept Group recommendation (c) and propose that the Committee on Economic Affairs should be given the power to establish a sub-committee to undertake the task of considering the Finance Bill and a power to co-opt additional members to the sub-committee exclusively for its consideration of the Finance Bill. The terms of reference of the Economic Affairs Committee are wide enough to encompass this additional scrutiny work but, in relation to scrutiny of the Finance Bill, they should be amended specifically to prohibit the sub-committee from investigating the incidence or rates of tax, and to allow it only to address technical issues of tax administration, clarification and simplification. As the Group's report makes clear, there is no intention to challenge Commons financial privilege.
	Group recommendation (d): a new Lords select committee should be established to examine the merits of every statutory instrument subject to parliamentary scrutiny (paragraph 16)
	10. There is a large body of support for a new select committee of the Lords to examine the substance of statutory instruments and determine whether they merit debate.4 The creation of any new committee is a matter for the Liaison Committee. However, we endorse Group recommendation (d), as elaborated in the first sentence of this paragraph and invite the Liaison Committee to give it early and sympathetic consideration. We would point out that the present right of any member of the House to table motions on statutory instruments for debate on the floor of the House would continue unfettered after the appointment of the new committee.
	Group recommendation (e): on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the time for starred questions should be extended to 40 minutes; the number of starred questions on these two days should be increased from four to five; and the additional questions on these two days should be topical questions (paragraph 18)
	11. The number of Starred Questions has been increased over the years in response to the wishes of the House. No Standing Order is involved. Topical questions have become an important feature of the House's procedures. So the Procedure Committee endorses Group recommendation (e). We would however remind the House that topical questions should be topical.
	12. We have noted that the number of supplementary questions at Question Time has fallen over the years, due not only to longer questions being asked but also to longer ministerial replies. Front-bench interventions reduce the opportunities for back-benchers to ask supplementary questions. We therefore draw to the attention of all Members of the House the need for both shorter questions and shorter answers.
	13. We recommend:
	— the new topical question on Tuesday should be tabled by 2pm on the previous Friday, for selection by ballot;
	— for the additional topical question on Wednesday, members of the House should be restricted, as now, to one question only for the ballot that day; and
	— the present limitation of two topical questions per member per session be increased to four to take account of the extra two questions a week.
	Group recommendation (f): the House authorities, in consultation with the Government, should draw up and make available to the House a timetable that would allow each Minister one sitting day a week free of starred questions (paragraph 18)
	14. We do not endorse Group recommendation (f). It should be left to ministers to decide whether to answer questions themselves or leave them to be answered by a Whip if, for example, they are absent from the House on official duties.
	Group recommendation (g): as a package of measures (a) the House should normally rise not later than 10pm; (b) this should be coupled with greater use of Grand Committees for the kind of bills considered suitable by the Rippon Group; and (c) after second reading there should be a motion in the House to commit each bill to the appropriate committee, usually a Grand Committee or a Committee of the Whole House (paragraph 23)
	Group recommendation (h): a new standing order should be adopted to provide that no new item of business (which would include a new Group of amendments) could begin after 10pm (paragraph 24)
	Group recommendation (k): on Thursdays the House should sit at 11.00am and adjourn not later than about 7pm and this recommendation should be incorporated in a standing order (paragraph 27)
	15. The House of Lords can sit (and has sat) at any convenient time. Sitting times do not need the express approval of the House. So there is no procedural issue in the sitting and rising times of the House. It is a matter of convenience and practice. The Procedure Committee endorses Group recommendation (g)(a) that the House should normally rise by 10pm on Mondays to Wednesdays. Group recommendation (g)(b) on Grand Committees follows from recommendation (g)(a) and we endorse it also.
	16. We recommend however that only one Grand Committee to consider a bill should sit on any one day.
	17. The Procedure Committee endorses Group recommendation (g)(c) that after the second reading of a bill a separate motion should be moved by the Lord in charge to commit the bill to the appropriate committee. Accordingly, we set out below a revision of Standing Order 47 (committal of bills) to give effect to this recommendation:
	Standing Order 47, leave out paragraph (1) and insert—
	(1) After second reading, bills are committed to a committee on a motion in the name of the Lord in charge of the bill (except that in case of a Bill of Supply or a bill certified by the Speaker as a Money Bill the House may order that the bill be not committed.)
	18. It will be important to ensure that Bills which do not attract amendments and which would have their committee stage discharged on the day of the committee stage are not committed to Grand Committees. It would be undesirable from a procedural and administrative point of view to discharge the Grand Committee stage on the day it was to take place (although it would be possible on the day before to vacate the order of commitment to a Grand Committee and commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House which could then be discharged in the normal way). The waste of resources incurred in setting up a Grand Committee for a non-controversial bill and then cancelling it for want of amendments, or having it meet but only briefly, would be considerable.
	19. For these reasons we recommend also that any member of the House in charge of a private member's bill should not table the motion to commit the bill without consulting the clerks. This would help to ensure that only suitable bills of the type recommended by the Rippon Group were referred to Grand Committees.
	20. In the debate on 21 May 2002 Lord Jenkin of Roding asked the Procedure Committee to consider the possibility of splitting a bill between a Committee of the Whole House and a Grand Committee. House of Lords procedures are flexible, and there is no procedural reason why a motion to commit a bill should not do as Lord Jenkin has proposed. However, Lord Jenkin based his suggestion on the Commons practice of dividing the Finance Bill in such a way, and it seems to us that few other bills lend themselves to being split in this way.
	21. Group recommendation (h) proposed that a Standing Order should be drafted to ensure that the House should not begin new business after 10pm on Mondays to Wednesdays or after 7pm on Thursdays (and presumably Fridays). The Procedure Committee does not endorse this recommendation because a Standing Order would not allow enough flexibility. We recommend instead that it should become a firm convention of the House, underpinned by guidance inserted into the Companion to Standing Orders, that the House normally rises by about 10pm on Mondays to Wednesdays.
	22. The Procedure Committee considered Group recommendation (k) that on Thursdays the House should sit at 11am and rise by 7pm. In discussion it emerged that the Group's proposal did not take into account the desire of the parties and groups to break from business in the middle of the day for party meetings. If there were to be such a break, the lost sitting time would have to be added at the end of the day. The Procedure Committee also considered the timing of Starred Questions if the House were to decide to sit on Thursdays at 11am. Taking these two issues into account, we invite the House to consider whether to accept the following timetable for Thursday sittings:
	
		
			 11 am–1.30 pm House sits for public business 
			  
			 1.30 pm–3 pm House adjourns during pleasure 
			  
			 3 pm–7.30 pm House resumes, starting with  Starred Questions 
			  
			 7.30 pm (or earlier depending  on business) for 1- hours Unstarred questions (if desired) 
		
	
	Group recommendation (i): urgent steps should be taken to correct the Moses Room shortcomings and consideration should be given to holding Grand Committees and other business in the Robing Room where the House has sat in the past (paragraph 25)
	23. We strongly support the first part of this recommendation because the Moses Room is at present unsuitable for holding Grand Committees. The second part concerning the Robing Room raises a number of difficult issues, including public access and the installation of a suitable sound system and recording and broadcasting facilities. We recommend that the suitability of the Robing Room for Grand Committees should be considered by those responsible for the Robing Room.
	Group recommendation (j): three additional Wednesdays should be allotted for backbench debates in each session, and more debates on select committee reports and on general topics should be held in prime time on the floor of the House (paragraph 26)
	24. The Standing Orders of the House already state that general debates have priority on the Order Paper on Wednesdays5; but it has become increasingly the case that Wednesdays in June have been used for Government business. The Procedure Committee therefore supports recommendation (j). To give effect to it we recommend that in a normal full session every Wednesday from the beginning of the session until the end of June should be set aside for general debates. This should be stated in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
	25. Under Standing Order 40, debates on select committee reports already have the same priority on the Order Paper as proceedings on public bills. We recommend that the Companion to the Standing Orders should also state the desirability of regular debates on select committee reports and general topics in prime time. This would encourage the usual channels to give prime time for at least some reports to be debated. We recognise that other reports, in particular European Union Committee reports on documents subject to a scrutiny reserve, might still have to be debated outside prime time because they might need to take place urgently at short notice in order that the reserve can be lifted.
	26. Paragraph 19 of the Group's report raises the possibility of extending the scope of Grand Committees from consideration of legislation to the holding of debates on general subjects. Nothing in our present report should be taken as ruling out such a possibility and a procedure could be established at a future date to give effect to it.
	Group recommendation (l): the House of Lords should be willing to sit in September, and in return the House should have longer recesses at Christmas, Easter or Whitsun, or rise earlier for the summer recess (paragraph 28)
	27. This is not strictly a matter of procedure. However, we support the Group's aim of a more balanced parliamentary year. We are conscious that from 2003 the House of Commons is likely to rise in mid-July and to sit from the beginning of September with a break during the main party conferences. We do not believe that it would be desirable for this House to rule out the possibility of also sitting regularly in September. The Group made it clear that in return for sitting in September the House should have longer recesses at other times. We believe that the House will wish to express an opinion on this possibility before a change with such important effects on the lives of members of the House and their families is implemented. We therefore recommend that any proposal for the House to meet in part of the following September, rather than at other times of the year, should be put to the House with clear guidelines early in the session.
	Group recommendation (m): Grand Committees may sit in September, whether or not the House is sitting (paragraph 29)
	28. This is largely a matter of business management and raises similar issues to September sittings of the House. It is desirable that more Law Commission Bills should be introduced. A procedure already exists for the scrutiny of Law Commission Bills, namely Special Public Bill Committees. But this has not been used since 1995 because no Law Commission Bill has been introduced. The aim of recommendation (m) is to encourage Governments to introduce more Law Commission Bills, and we endorse it for that reason. However, it is essential that the Government business managers give reasonable notice when Grand Committees will be meeting in September so that members of the House can arrange their other commitments accordingly.
	29. We must point out to the House however that a number of procedural issues would arise if Grand Committees were to sit in September without the House sitting at the same time. These include authority to print the bill as amended, the implications for minimum intervals between stages, the status of the Hansard report of the proceedings in Grand Committee, and the impact on praying time for statutory instruments. We invite the Clerk of the Parliaments to consider these and any other issues which may arise in connection with Grand Committee sittings when the House itself is not sitting and to propose for our consideration any necessary amendments to the Standing Orders and to the Companion to the Standing Orders. These various issues would need to be resolved before Grand Committees could begin to sit in September.
	Group recommendation (n): there should be a review of the House's scrutiny of European legislation, including the appropriate balance between the scrutiny of general policy and that of specific legislative proposals, and the desirability of a greater number of shorter and more focussed reports (paragraph 30).
	30. We believe that this is a matter for the European Union Committee and it is already conducting such a review. It would be desirable for the results of the review to be reported to the Liaison Committee in due course.
	CONCLUSION
	31. Implementation of the Group's recommendations is likely to lead to a significant increase in the House's committee work. It is likely that there will be some days when a pre-legislative scrutiny committee is sitting at the same time as bills are being considered in a Grand Committee and also in Committee of the Whole House. It will therefore be essential for the business managers to plan the legislative timetable in order to ensure that ministers, Opposition spokesmen and other members of the House are not faced with conflicting demands for their time and presence. Certain administrative and resource problems will arise in the short term and ways will have to be found to overcome them.

Lord Trefgarne: I should like to make a few observations which will help me shorten my remarks when we discuss the amendments in a little while.
	I was a member of the Procedure Committee which prepared the report which is now before the Committee. Although I accept that the report broadly reflects the view of the committee, I take a different opinion on at least some of the issues and will in due course propose certain amendments for the Committee's consideration.
	I start with the observation that it was a great pity that the committee was asked to complete its work so quickly. My noble friend Lord Denham indicated at the time how unusual, not to say unprecedented, it was for the committee to be so constrained. The proceedings of the committee which led to this report were rushed to say the least. It was hardly ever possible for our hard working Clerk to provide documentation in a timely manner. Although, no doubt, our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, did his best, we were often faced with the need to consider verbal amendments of an important kind. I caused some irritation by repeatedly intervening for clarification of what was being discussed or considered. I apologise to colleagues if that was so. Again, no doubt as a result of pressures of time, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was not always able to guide us through the intricacies of the various proposals and counter proposals as clearly as I am certain he would have wished.
	Another issue, which is reflected in the amendments which I shall move later, was the question of resources. The plain fact is that it is clear that no consideration of any sort had been given to the likely cost of the enhanced facilities which these proposals will require. We were simply told that whatever additional resources were required would be found because the parliamentary budget is apparently not cash limited. I believe that that is a wholly inappropriate approach to the process of modernisation and I hope that the Committee will in due course agree. I emphasise that I intend no criticism of the staff and others involved. There was simply not time to consider these matters properly. That, of course, includes the officials of this Chamber.
	There was also some suggestion that some of the points contained in the Leader's Group report, which we are considering, were not matters for the Procedure Committee. I take the view that the whole of the Leader's Group report, not just part of it, was referred to the Procedure Committee by the Chamber. I believe that the Chamber has the right and the authority to direct the Procedure Committee as it pleases. For the committee simply to refuse to consider matters on the ground that they are for some other Select Committee is just wrong. I hope that that doctrine will not be advanced again. The truth is that the Procedure Committee has often considered matters which may or may not have fallen precisely within its terms of reference when directed to do so by the Chamber. That must surely be the correct way to proceed.
	I believe that this package, which we have repeatedly been urged to take as a package both in the Chamber and in the committee, has the effect of facilitating the passage of government business. Although a few of the detailed proposals may not be directly so intended, that is the effect of the package of proposals. I use the word "effect" advisedly. I am, of course, aware that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal has protested that that was not his intention. But again I say that that is the effect of the measures now before us.
	It is, I believe, of overwhelming importance that in formulating the procedures and protections available in this Chamber we are careful never to undermine the capacity of minority groups to express their view and to have their position considered. In the end the only pressure that a single voice or perhaps a small group of like-minded noble Lords can bring is one of delay. We are in this Chamber an adjunct to the democratic processes of the other place. We have a right, indeed, a duty, to revise, to amend and to have the other place think again. That means that it must be possible for even just one noble Lord to keep a Minister from his dinner or his bed at least for a while.
	Of course, ultimately the Chamber will decide. There are procedures already in place to prevent abuse of that right. However, the package now before us in my view further erodes the power of Back-Benchers and especially minority groups of Back-Benchers. I confess that I should have much preferred our procedures to be left as they are. However, we now have a package before us. I shall therefore seek the Committee's agreement to certain amendments which I believe remove the worst of the proposals now before us and perhaps go a little way to ensuring that the rights of Back-Benchers are not unacceptably eroded.
	Before I turn to the amendments I make two final points. I have said that I see the effect of these proposals being to facilitate the passage of government business. I fear greatly that if we are to move to a situation where the Chamber is expected to finish business at a certain time or within a certain period, it will not be long before business managers think in terms of a guillotine. Nothing has more undermined the capacity of the other place to consider, amend and revise legislation than the draconian use of the guillotine procedure which has become so prevalent in recent times.
	I, of course, recognise that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal has disclaimed any such intention, but we have to look to the time when other Ministers will occupy the Government Benches who may feel less constrained. I believe with complete conviction that if we were to move to a guillotine procedure in this Chamber the capacity of Parliament—that is both Houses taken together—to hold the Government to account and to have them explain and justify their actions and their proposals would be almost completely eroded.
	I turn to my final point. These proposals have emerged from a Leader's Group and the Procedure Committee. In truth it is the so-called "usual channels" that bring the proposals before the Chamber. Even the Procedure Committee consists principally of distinguished denizens of the usual channels. When noble Lords such as myself seek to offer a different view, we are very soon seen off.
	I accept that for routine matters the usual channels serve a good purpose, but for matters of principle particularly affecting the Back Benches they are unsatisfactory. My fears were underlined during the Procedure Committee deliberations when the Lord Privy Seal sought to defend a particular proposal by claiming that the rights of Back Benchers would be protected by, as he put it, the lock of the usual channels. At that moment I became resolved to challenge the conclusions of the Procedure Committee report now before your Lordships. I support the Motion before the House.

The Earl of Caithness: I too served on the Procedure Committee. I found it an uneddifying experience. The report is a fair summary of the Procedure Committee's debate, but we were not shown it before—

Noble Lords: Order!

Baroness Nicol: I am confused about what procedure we are following. Has the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, moved his amendment, or did he make a Second Reading speech, and are we being asked to listen to another?

The Earl of Caithness: This is not a Second Reading speech, but a comment on the question before the House about the Procedure Committee. I think it is helpful for the House—

Lord Tordoff: The Motion before the House is that the House resolves itself into a Committee.

The Earl of Caithness: In that case I shall reserve my remarks for later.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I should call Amendment No. 1.

Lord Trefgarne: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Paragraph 2, page 3, line 8, leave out "At the end of the trial period the House should review how the new practices have worked and decide whether they should be continued." and insert "We recommend that a further report of the Procedure Committee on the new working practices be made to the House near the end of the trial period. This report should review how the new practices have worked and recommend whether or not they should be continued."

Lord Trefgarne: During the Procedure Committee's deliberations there was considerable discussion—

Lord Marlesford: I am sorry, but on a point of order, the Chairman of Committees said a moment ago that the Motion before the House was that the House resolved itself into a Committee. Surely the fact that a noble Lord is sitting in the Committee Chair shows that the House is already in Committee? Can the noble Lord explain?

Lord Tordoff: I apologise. The Motion before the House was in fact that the report be agreed to, and we are now on the amendment.

The Earl of Caithness: My remarks are not addressed to a particular amendment; they concern the Procedure Committee.

Lord Grocott: The Motion before the House is that the report be now received. The normal procedure is to move to the first amendment, which I understood has been called. I am sure that that is the convenient way to proceed.

Lord Trefgarne: During the Procedure Committee's deliberations there was considerable discussion of how we should proceed at the end of the trial period. It has been agreed that the proposals before your Lordships in the Procedure Committee report, however they may be amended during today's discussion, should be implemented for a trial period only, with further consideration being given to them in due course. The point I put to your Lordships is how the outcome of that trial should be assessed, considered and decided on at the end of the two-year period.
	Some of us held the view that the Procedure Committee should be asked to consider the matter on the basis of the two years' experience and make a further report to your Lordships. I am certain that that is the right way to proceed. The alternative, which is proposed in the report and with which I disagree, is that the matter should be decided by the House.
	I fear greatly that if we leave it to be decided by the House, as proposed, the matter will not be adequately considered because the House will not have the proper information before it and it may be agreed or disagreed to without the benefit of proper advice and consideration. The correct procedure is for the matter to go back to the Procedure Committee after the two-year trial, for the committee to consider it again and then report to your Lordships. That is the effect of my amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment because it is inconsistent with Amendment No. 2, which I wish to support.

The Earl of Caithness: I support the amendment. Before speaking to it I wish to make a comment about the Procedure Committee because I found it an unedifying experience. The report is a fair summary of what was discussed, but we did not see it before it was published and it was not agreed by the committee.
	As the Leader of the House said, we were presented with a package. It seemed to me on many occasions that it was a package created by wise men and that comments on it from Back Benchers were an unwelcome irritant.
	When we discussed the report, many of the amendments were not written down and there was no order for them; some were oral, some were made on the spot. It was therefore difficult to follow at times exactly what the Procedure Committee was doing. Some of the amendments were passed over and we had to return to clauses to deal with the amendments that were written down. Some of the evidence presented to us, in particular, the paper presented by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, was not given the attention it merited. It was given scant regard.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne about the sources, to which we shall come in a moment. The Leader of the House repeated today that this was a package. But he himself moved an amendment to alter what the working group had said. This amendment seeks to replace what it said and to undo the effect of the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
	On this experience, I believe working groups chaired by the Leader of the House to be bad and divisive. It has signed up noble Lords to something that pits the Front Benches against the Back Benches. Although it was probably right for my noble friend Lord Strathclyde to take part in the working group, I hope that he will look at another with a great deal more circumspection.
	The Leader of the House was right in the way he described the role of the House when he introduced this debate a moment ago. But while much of the report is welcome, some of its recommendations will weaken the House's role.
	I turn to Amendment No. 1. What concerns me is when the trial period is going to begin. As the report states, the proposals are to be phased in over time as resources allow. There will therefore be no precise time to start the two-year period. I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that the House will have great difficulty in assessing how the trial period has worked unless a committee such as the Procedure Committee has investigated it and asked questions. One of the advantages of the Procedure Committee looking at the working group's proposals was that we began to ask questions that had not been asked before. The more we asked them, the more the package started to unravel and the more faults were found.
	The House would be doing itself a great disservice if it allowed the trial period to end without having a report before it in order to assess what had happened during the trial period.

Lord Berkeley: Before the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, sits down, he said earlier that he did not see the text of the report before it was published. The end of the report states that the committee resolved that the report, as amended, be the report of the committee. He did not vote against that. Therefore, did he not read it; did he not have it in front of him; or was he not there?

The Earl of Caithness: I was certainly there. The noble Lord is kind, but I do not have to answer before I sit down because this is Committee stage. What happened was that we reached the end of the last day and the Chairman of Committees said that he would prepare the report and have it published because we had, in any case, overrun our time. We did not see the final version of the report, and I did not see it until it was printed. In fact, I do not believe that any members of the Procedure Committee saw it.

Lord Tordoff: With due respect, I believe that the noble Earl's memory does not serve him well. I specifically showed the final draft to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, as well as to some other members of the committee.

Lord Mancroft: I do not know whether or not the memory of my noble friend Lord Caithness is at fault, but I was a member of the Procedure Committee and I did not see the report until it was published.
	The points that my noble friend Lord Caithness made are important. In certain areas of the House I detect an irritation that this issue has been raised. If noble Lords look carefully at the report of the Leader's Group or, indeed, at the report of the Procedure Committee, which we are considering today, they will see that the issue is confusing and contains complicated matters.
	The portrayal given by my noble friend Lord Caithness of how the Procedure Committee operated was fairly accurate. I have been in your Lordships' House for quite a long time and have sat on all-party groups, Back-Bench groups, Procedure Committees and Committees of the Whole House. I have to tell noble Lords that taking part in this Procedure Committee was one of the most unhappy experiences that I have had during the 16 or 17 years that I have been in this House. That does not mean that all the things proposed in the Leader's Group report and all the things that the Procedure Committee discussed were bad or wrong. This House must evolve; of course it must, and we must change our practices.
	However, as we started to go through the issues of this package, it became perfectly clear that many of them had not been considered in huge detail or been thought through. Indeed, over the past week or so since the report was published—I may be very slow; I probably am—I have thought of a number of other things that we did not discuss or consider which we should have done. I asked myself, "How does that work? How will that knock on?" These issues are important. I do not believe that individually any of them are particularly earth-shattering. I do not believe that any one of the measures in the report will change the House overwhelmingly or destroy the work that has gone before. However, I believe that, as a package, it will change the way that the House conducts itself. That will not necessarily be for the bad but it will change it.
	I am clear that the report of the Procedure Committee before noble Lords today does not give the full flavour of what the Committee is being asked to consider. The reason that your Lordships sent the report of the Leader's Group to the Procedure Committee was so that we, the Procedure Committee, could give Members of the Committee guidance on how to make a decision today.
	I am clear that we, the Procedure Committee, have failed noble Lords in that duty in that the guidance given in the report before the Committee today is simply not adequate. The Committee is not in possession of enough information or facts to make an adequate decision. If the Committee were to make a decision today, undoubtedly it would be one that stored up possible problems for the future. I suspect that that is perhaps because we set about the task rather too quickly and, if I may say so, rather like a bull in a china shop. We did not pick off the issues and discuss them at length as we should have done. The last meeting of the committee took place at 48 hours' notice, when one or two members were unable to be present. In my view, that is not the way for a committee of this importance to conduct itself.
	Therefore, I believe that Amendment No. 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is helpful. If Members of the Committee decide today, as I believe they should, that what is before them is not wholly adequate but, at the same time, is not the worst thing on earth, and if they decide that they wish to proceed and see how the proposals work—I am not sure that I would consider that to be wise but Members of the Committee may decide that that is what they wish to do—an insurance policy and check are needed. My noble friend Lord Caithness is right with regard to the trial period. I am not clear when it should start or finish, and Members of the Committee need to be clear about that before coming to a decision. However, assuming that Members of the Committee decide to proceed with the two-year trial period, the obvious insurance policy and check that noble Lords will decide upon at the end of that period will be to say to the Procedure Committee, "Would you have a look at this in rather greater depth, in rather more detail and in a rather calmer atmosphere than was the case two years ago? Could you report back to the House and advise it as best you can on whether this should be adopted as there are question marks over it?" However, the report is not all bad, and Amendment No. 1 may at least go some way to solving some of the problems that lie within it.

Viscount Bledisloe: With regard to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is right. We had before us a draft report. The issue and various alterations were discussed and agreed to in principle. The Chairman of Committees took away the report to redraft it. Unless he sent it to one or two members specifically for approval, the committee as a whole did not see it before it emerged. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, obviously did his best to encapsulate in wording the feeling of the Procedure Committee. But the wording before this Committee was not seen by the whole committee before it was published. That is the answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
	I turn to the amendment. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to enlighten us as to the version which appears as his proposal concerning what will happen after the two Sessions of trial period. I suggested that all those changes should be subject to a sunset clause so that they had positively to be re-enacted if they were to happen. The Committee will not be surprised to hear that I did not get very far with that suggestion.
	The Leader of the House has undertaken that, in their own time, the Government will bring the matter back before the House. However, supposing that we do not adopt the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I want to ask the Leader of the House what he contemplates will happen. Does he contemplate putting forward a Motion with perhaps one or two alterations to the practice and then it being open to people to table Motions to change other practices; or does he anticipate a general debate and then, if it emerges that some changes are considered desirable, that the Procedure Committee should implement them? I believe that we need to be clear about that before we decide whether or not the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is necessary.
	It would not be satisfactory if the Government simply brought the matter back to us after two Sessions saying, "It's working well, except that I think it should be 6.45 p.m. instead of 7.15 p.m.", and if no one else was in a position to lay before the House alternative specific proposals. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will enlighten us before we have to decide whether or not to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

Lord Peston: I hope that it is in order for a Back-Bench Peer who is not a hereditary Peer to take part in this afternoon's proceedings. Some Members of the Committee may recall that, when we last looked at the Leader's Group report, I made a number of disobliging remarks about the Procedure Committee, to put it in the simplest terms possible. I believed that it was an idiotic idea to give this report for consideration to that committee, which I considered to be a useless committee. That managed to offend several people. I know that, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was offended by my remarks, as he told me so.

Lord Trefgarne: I do not recall the noble Lord making the remarks. I was not in the least offended.

Lord Peston: The noble Lord was present when I said that we should not remit the matter, and he told me the following day that he was upset by my remarks.
	What troubles me is that we have heard four members of the Procedure Committee agree with me that they do not care at all for the Procedure Committee. They served on it and they thought, to put it in common parlance, that it was a stitch up. But have they not noticed their own contradiction—that, having said that, they now want the Procedure Committee to do more? The idea is preposterous.
	I am addressing only the first amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. However, to save time—noble Lords will be aware how economical I am—my remarks will apply to several of the other amendments. It is absolutely barmy, if I may use that word as parliamentary language, for Peers to say that they dislike intensely the way in which the Procedure Committee has carried on and then propose that the same Procedure Committee, rather than your Lordships, should in a couple of years' time decide whether we have made progress. In due course, the committee members will become great experts on cost, efficiency and such matters.
	I hope that we shall throw out all the amendments—and it would be a good idea to do that forthwith, because there is rather more serious business for your Lordships to address today. I hope that at least we can deal with these matters with some dispatch and not be taken in with the idea that we will waste any time with the Procedure Committee.

Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may respond to the quite appropriate personal remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I can assure him that I do not mind at all what he said.
	The matter should go back to the Procedure Committee, not because that is the perfect body for everything—it is not, as I hope my remarks have already indicated—but because, provided it is not unduly constrained by time, as it was on this occasion, in my view wholly inappropriately, it would at least have the capacity to take evidence, to receive information and to receive the advice of the Officials of the House on all the detailed matters that will cause your Lordships to reach a final decision on this trial when it is complete in two Sessions' time. It would be preferable to do it that way, rather than to put it to the House as a whole. One has only to imagine how it would be done. Is the House to consider all the detailed implications of the trial, which by that stage we shall have completed over a two-year period? I believe that that would be impracticable.
	Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I look forward to hearing how, if my amendment is not agreed to, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal intends to proceed with this matter.

Lord Barnett: As a non-member of this august committee, I do not pretend that I can ever be as rude as my noble friend Lord Peston—

Noble Lords: Try, try!

Lord Barnett: But I shall try. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who told us that he would have preferred no changes at all to be made, that it would have been simpler and more sensible if he had moved one amendment to delete everything, so that we could have a vote or go home. It occurred to me to move an amendment of that kind, but I did not want to be provocative.
	Having read this amendment with very great interest, I believe that it is rather rude to the Leader of the House. We are told in paragraph 2 that at the end of the trial period the House itself, not even the usual channels, should review how the new practices have worked and decide whether they should be continued. That is quite straightforward and quite simple. I look forward to hearing my noble and learned friend's reply. I am sure he will be able to tell us that that is precisely what he intends to do, in which case I shall have no need to say anything else.

Lord Skelmersdale: Irrespective of the views held by noble Lords on the Procedure Committee, it is worth remarking that we are today debating a report of the Procedure Committee, which was used as a filter to put flesh on the bones of the report of the Leader's Group. Because we are debating it today in the form of a report of the Procedure Committee, I, like my noble friends, believe that it is perfectly reasonable to expect that in two and a half years' time we should revisit the subject by way of a filter, whether in the form of a Procedure Committee or some other committee of the House. If as a whole House we were to review the activities that flow from this report, we would get into a terrible muddle.

Lord Norton of Louth: I intervene briefly to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Some of the matters that we are discussing may be seen as essentially housekeeping matters. However, in so far as some of the proposals embodied in this report affect the relationship between Parliament and the executive, we are considering a very important matter, and I hope that we can discuss it at that level.
	Secondly, I believe that it would be appropriate for a committee of the House, though not necessarily the Procedure Committee—it is not necessary today to decide which—to conduct a review of the practices, once in place. That body should assess the practices on the basis of one clear criterion, which should also be the criterion that we employ today in considering the recommendations and the amendments before us; namely, whether they strengthen Parliament in calling the Government to account. That should be the primary criterion used to inform the House, and I hope that we may debate the matter at that level.

Lord Strathclyde: Of all the amendments that we are considering today, this is the only one that I find in the least compelling. If we have a Procedure Committee, why do we not use the wretched thing? As noble Lords and my noble friends in particular have said, some detailed matters require a certain amount of expertise. Therefore, the Procedure Committee is the right body to form an initial view of whether, after the end of two Sessions, this experiment has worked.
	Accepting this amendment would do very little harm and could do a great deal of good. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will think very carefully about whether he can accept what is in practice a very minor amendment but one that could be of great benefit to your Lordships' House.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I shall confine myself to the two important themes enunciated by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.
	I endorse entirely the wording and the spirit of the single criterion that he specified, which are very similar to those that I have used on many occasions in this House: not least, our scrutiny of secondary legislation; Europe-derived legislation; and the necessity, to which I referred earlier and now repeat, that Opposition parties and Cross-Benchers should be properly resourced and equipped to do their work. After all, the Government in the nature of things will not be able to scrutinise themselves. I believe that if the Norton criterion is put to the report of the Leader's Group and to the report of the Procedure Committee in its present form, it will pass. I am quite happy to be judged by that question alone.
	The noble Viscount asked what should be done at the end of the trial period. I remind your Lordships—the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Peston, are quite right—that this came from page 1, paragraph 4 of the original report, which is in bold for a specific purpose: its importance is recognised. Your Lordships will remember that this was not a committee of placemen, nor a committee with a government majority. The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Waddington and Lord Roper, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, served on the committee. It was a unanimous report. Paragraph 4 of the report states:
	"Acceptance may be more readily forthcoming if the package is endorsed on the basis that it is for a trial period of two Sessions".
	Then there is the citation by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett:
	"And the House itself would have to approve any continuation thereafter".
	Nothing could be plainer than that.
	The noble Viscount's question was: what should be the procedure at that stage? It is a perfectly legitimate question. I anticipate that I would suggest that we have as wide a debate as possible with the opportunity for Members of the House, who, after all are the people who matter here—this is a House matter essentially—to say whether or not they found the changes acceptable. Nothing could be fairer and more transparent than that.
	I advise Members of the Committee not to bind themselves today inevitably to returning to the Procedure Committee. That occurred to me long before my noble friend Lord Peston pointed out the slight internal inconsistency of members reviling in vigorous terms—not of course in words of asperity, but getting close to it—the quality of the Procedure Committee but of insisting almost simultaneously that the Procedure Committee was the beast which should be entrusted with this work.
	My advice to the Committee is to see how we get on after the two-year period. We can then discuss among ourselves what we want to do. But let us keep the situation flexible and at least try to make changes work to the benefit of the House.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can answer one simple question. I have no desire to attack the Procedure Committee. I would not dream of entering on to the ground of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who was so uncivil about it. On the whole I agree with what the Leader of the House has just said. There is little point after what has been said in our sending the matter back to the Procedure Committee. It might then use all its ingenuity to make things even more complicated than they are now.
	My question for the noble and learned Lord is: exactly what does "pre-legislative scrutiny" amount to? Are they just weasel words to cover up a shortening of procedures? Or do they mean—something which I would personally very much welcome—a pre-legislative examination of every Bill, which could then be thrown back in the event that it sinned through being incomprehensible either in whole or in part—I should like that to be regarded as a vice fatal to a Bill—or was the product of the bad habit of incorporating three, four or five Bills in one cover under one title, which would similarly be regarded as an offence? If that kind of provision was covered by "pre-legislative" scrutiny, I would be very much in favour of it. If there was some other hidden reason, I would be less keen.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am always happy to oblige the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. His questions about pre-legislative scrutiny attach themselves appropriately to subsequent groups of amendments. I can perhaps more helpfully reply at that stage.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have no faith in trial periods; I have no faith in trial periods ever coming to an end. I am glad that this one is to be limited to two years. But at the end of the two years its success or failure should be discussed by the Procedure Committee whose job it is to make recommendations to the House on such matters. After that the trial period should be considered by the House; it should not be allowed to continue, possibly by default, on account of unfortunate timing of a discussion in this House such as the last day before the holidays when many noble Lords may already have left. It is important that this issue is given proper consideration with plenty of time allowed. I do not have any faith in that happening unless it goes back to the Procedure Committee.

Lord Trefgarne: I share the concerns that have been expressed. However, the noble and learned Lord said—I hope that I understood him correctly—that he did not rule out the possibility of this matter returning to the Procedure Committee at the end of the trial. That is highly desirable. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Trefgarne: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Paragraph 3, page 3, line 14, leave out from "so." to end of line 16 and insert "The Procedure Committee recommends that none of the proposals in this report should come into operation until detailed estimates of their cost and the availability of the financial, human and accommodation resources needed to give effect to them have been presented to the Procedure Committee and the other relevant committees or sub committees of the House. The House itself should, as always, take the final decisions on how such resources should be allocated."

Lord Trefgarne: During our discussions in the Procedure Committee, there was some surprise among members that we had so little information about the cost and other resource implications of the proposals before us.
	I understand that the budget, as it applies to the costs of your Lordships' House and of the other place, is not cash limited. That is no doubt so. Nonetheless, it is imprudent for us to proceed with bringing in these proposals and for the Chairman of Committees to bring his report before the House without our really having any idea of what the costs might be. I accept at once that in the short time the Procedure Committee had available to carry out its work it was not possible to make the necessary calculations—in detail in any event—although I know that our officials did their best.
	I hope that it is now possible for the Chairman of Committees to explain in more detail what the resource implications are. I hope that he will do so now. I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: I made it perfectly clear to my colleagues on the committee that, like a number of noble Lords who spoke on the previous amendment, I was dismayed by the way in which our business was conducted. I must make it equally clear to the House, which may otherwise be under the impression that the report before us provides reliable guidance based on a full and adequate examination of the issues, that it does not.
	On 21st May the Procedure Committee was asked,
	"to consider the practical implementation of the [working] group's recommendations".
	We got off to a bad start with a paper before us that told us that two of the most significant recommendations—pre-legislative scrutiny and September sittings—did not concern the procedures of the House. They were a matter for the Government or the "usual channels", with the implication that we need not spend much time on them. Far worse was the fact that at no stage in our inquiry did we receive a single paper dealing with costs, resources, staff, options or the practical consequences of the various proposals before us.
	In a paper to the committee which commented on the first draft, I wrote:
	"I believe that the House will think it incredible that paragraph 3 about 'heavy burdens', prompted substantially by comments that I made to the Committee about the experience of the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill, has not led to an assessment of those burdens or any analysis by the Committee of the manner in which they will be handled".
	We were told, as my noble friend Lord Caithness informed the House, that it was the practice "to find the resources" to make possible what the House wanted.
	There are two objections to that remarkable revelation about the way in which the business of Parliament is conducted. Experience tells us that even if resources are provided they may be inadequate or their arrival may be long delayed. Certainly, that has been the case with the European sub-committees which have had to struggle on for long periods with too few research assistants.
	More important is an objection of principle, raised with vigour by my noble friend Lord Caithness during our proceedings. He argued that it was wholly wrong that we should take decisions that might have substantial cost implications without any examination of the costs or the way in which they were to be met. If I had attempted to run the business of the National Rivers Authority in that manner, the department and the National Audit Office would have assailed me, and the Public Accounts Committee would have torn me in little shreds. If any commercial company ran its business in the same way it would not survive for more than a few weeks.
	Whatever may have been the practice in the past, it seems to me shocking that Parliament should still operate in that way. For that reason, I shall certainly vote for the amendments standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Caithness and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.
	I must make it clear that there are a good many proposals that I can support. Because some of us dug in our heels and pressed our points, and because the Leader of the House sensibly accepted amendments—I thank him for his wise and pragmatic approach on several issues—there are sensible suggestions that I can accept. For example, with two exceptions, the carry-over proposal is close to a form that would be acceptable and would avoid the damaging consequences that many of my noble friends have identified as being inherent. The exceptions are: any satisfactory assurance that pre-legislative scrutiny should normally (certainly with important Bills) involve both Houses; and the time limit proposed by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. I think that we should insist on those points when individual carry-over Motions are moved.
	I want to deal with two particular issues where the examination of practicalities and resource implications has been disastrously inadequate. The first concerns the proposals about which my noble friend Lord Peyton asked a question: the proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny. The second concerns the proposal that we should rise in mid-July and sit regularly in September.
	I am totally in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny. However, I am also a member at present on the Joint Committee on scrutiny of the Communications Bill and, with my colleagues on that committee, I have been learning some practical lessons about what is involved. I cannot think of any task in which I have been involved which has involved such a heavy workload. The quantity and complexity of the evidence—written, oral and the 500 submissions received on our website—has been immense. If the burdens have been heavy for the committee members, and in particular for our admirable chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, they have been even heavier for our Clerks, special advisers, officials who have managed our website, the Hansard Society and the many others in the very large team which has made our work possible. Our own Lords Clerk had to be appointed at short notice and it was unhelpful that he was given a new job and replaced before our work was anything like completed.
	The penultimate sentence of the report that we are debating contains a statement that is incapable of fulfilment. It states:
	"It will therefore be essential for the business managers to plan the legislative timetable in order to ensure that Ministers, Opposition spokesmen and other members of the House are not faced with conflicting demands for their time and presence".
	On every occasion on which the Procedure Committee met, I had to leave well before the end of the meeting in order to attend the joint scrutiny committee and make it quorate. Tonight I shall have to leave this debate for exactly the same reason; and I apologise to the House for that fact. When the time comes to vote in this Chamber, the Joint Committee will have to adjourn. Because we have arranged to meet upstairs, it will not be entirely disruptive. But when witness sessions are being held in Portcullis House the consequences can be quite serious. On one occasion we sat from six in the evening until 10.15 and kept some of our witnesses, the heads of great companies, waiting for lengthy periods while Members of the other place voted in Divisions in which the government majority was never less than 200. Because of the distance to Portcullis House each Division involves an adjournment of at least 20 minutes.
	On this occasion, the problems have been just about overcome. But if several Joint Committees are meeting at the same time on important Bills they will be very great indeed. And do not imagine that Committee stages will be shorter than in the past. Because of the weight of evidence provided and the many questions identified, I am confident that the Committee stages are likely to be longer. I do not believe that we should leave it to ad hoc future arrangements for these formidable resource and business management problems to be resolved. The report of the Joint Committee on the communications Bill which will be published next Wednesday morning will contain some tough words about the things that the departments got wrong on this occasion and will suggest some essential ground rules for the future. We should not support the recommendation of the Procedure Committee until we have much more satisfactory guarantees that the resource and business management arrangements will be dealt with adequately and proper ground rules are in place. Here are further reasons for voting for the amendments.
	My general prejudice against September sittings on a regular basis arises from reasons well set out by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in the May debate, and I need not repeat them. Paragraph 27 of the committee report recommends that the House can reach this decision early in future Sessions. If no amendments had been tabled for today, under the procedure which has been adopted the House would not have been given an opportunity to express a view about the question at present. It is for that reason that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I have tabled amendments to remove paragraphs 27 and 28. Surely it is desirable that the House should have the opportunity to decide on the general issue this evening. The first draft of the report included a recommendation that the House should always rise by the middle of July and return at the beginning of September. The sentence was deleted but the House should be clear that that is what the business managers have in mind.
	Unfortunately, there has been no examination of some pretty fundamental questions. Because we follow the other place in dealing with many important Bills, that is our most busy time. It is also the prime time for pre-legislative scrutiny. Surely we need to consider pretty carefully the consequences of suddenly postponing all that activity for a month and a half. It is also a very busy time for the European Union Committee and its sub-committees. At my request, the European Union Committee is now considering the impact on our consideration of European business.
	At present if pre-legislative scrutiny is completed by the end of July, the Government have three months to consider the recommendations and redraft the Bill. If the scrutiny committees have to continue their work in the autumn, it is hard to see how the final Bills could be introduced before the year end. Are governments really going to be content with such long delays to their legislative programme? I doubt it. None of these subjects was considered by the Procedure Committee. We received no information about the impact on the staff of the House or about the impact on the maintenance programme, except that in the last hour of our deliberations the Clerk to the Parliaments suddenly slipped in the information that at least six months' notice would have to be given so that contractors could plan their programmes.
	The report states that whether Grand Committee sittings are to be held in September when the House is not sitting is largely a matter of business management. I do not agree. In addition to the points identified as requiring resolution, we must insist on information about costs, resources and staff. My suggestion in the committee that it would be necessary to bring back quite large numbers of staff, including those in the Clerks' department, messengers and security staff and to make substantial changes to the arrangements made for visitors was not challenged. Until there has been proper consideration of all these issues, I do not think that the House should contemplate so fundamental a change in our practices. For that reason, I shall support the amendments. I hope that many others will do so. As I have explained, I shall have to be absent for much of the remainder of the proceedings. However, I shall support other amendments. If my noble friend Lord Trefgarne moves amendments about September sittings, I hope that I shall be back so that I can support the amendments which stand in my name.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thought that we were debating one amendment. The remarks we have just heard were debating them all. It indicates to me that were we to have the horrible elected House we should have to have a Speaker to decide which matters were out of order. I thought that we were debating one amendment. If noble Lords want to speak to all the amendments, I shall be happy. We can have one debate, one vote and call it a day. But the noble Lord spoke about every single amendment on the Marshalled List.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the challenge which has been thrown at me. I responded to those issues which were affected by resources. We are dealing with one amendment. Every single point I made is covered by that amendment. I intend to make only one speech today. For the reasons I have explained I cannot be present in the House again. If the noble Lord wants me to make more detailed speeches on the other amendments, I shall come back and do so. But I think that he is being discourteous and unreasonable.

Lord Barnett: I wanted only to make a brief speech agreeing with some of what the noble Lord said and some of what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said—for different reasons. The plain fact is that I do not like this paragraph of the report either, for one simple reason. We are told that we will do all that and phase it,
	"as resources become available".
	This is the second Chamber of Parliament. We should decide what resources are available to us, not the usual channels, not the Procedure Committee, but this House. That is what we are talking about. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I do so reluctantly, because I disagree with just about everything else that he said and is doing in this debate, because he wants to kill it—I know that.
	But the plain fact is that there should have been and should be in the near future the preparation of a budget. That is crucial. I speak as a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and someone who had a little to do with the Treasury. I object to the form of words used in the report because we are asking the Treasury for money. We tell them what money we need, what resources we want to spend. We should not be asking it favours. As I said, this is the second Chamber of Parliament. That is what I do not like about that phrase.
	I hope that my noble friend—I beg his pardon; I mean my noble and learned friend; I know that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, likes us to be correct in these matters—can tell me that he does not intend to slow down any implementation of the report's recommendations simply because the Treasury does not allow him the money. He must tell the Treasury: we decide. We should not allow it to tell us what resources are available, especially when one considers how little we spend in this House in comparison with another place and with most other Parliaments around the world.
	So, for the reasons that I have explained, I support the amendment. I do not wish to delay matters, so I shall say only that I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to assure me that he will not delay implementation for the reasons implied in the report.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: If the introduction of the any part of the Procedure Committee's recommendation is to be phased, surely the trial period must also be phased.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: Perhaps I may form a bizarre and unusual partnership with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in support of his final point. He may recall that when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was a member of the House of Commons Commission, deciding how much the House of Commons could spend. I endeavoured to subject the commission to cash limits, but found that I was unable to do so from the Treasury. Some years later, when I was Leader of the House of Commons and my role was reversed, I took some pleasure in imposing the same conclusion. I think that my right honourable friend John Major was then Chancellor, but whoever it was, what the noble Lord said is absolutely right.
	That is a serious point. We cannot allow the Treasury to dictate to us the pace at which we implement the recommendations. Even so, one would have hoped that the matter had been thought through rather more fully than it has been, because there is every risk that our achievement will be inhibited by lack of preparation.

Lord Marsh: I rise to speak briefly because I am probably the only Member of the House who is not totally committed to the idea that we should have another committee to consider the procedures of this House. The extraordinary way in which the matter has developed leads one to wonder why some members of the committee did not either issue a minority report or leave the committee.

Lord Trefgarne: They are not allowed to.

Lord Marsh: Well, there are ways to get around that, as the noble Lord has been here long enough to know. I shall happily discuss with him how that can be done to make some protest.
	I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 2—I say that so that there is no grave misunderstanding. First, I fundamentally object to the amendment for a similar reason to the two previous speakers. There is not a complete, clear, logical analogy with the Welsh water board. As someone who has been involved in several companies, I think that that is a dangerous idea. I find the idea that measures that we believe are essential to good governance and our legislative efficiency—if that is what we decide—should be constrained for the lack of a budget or the need to keep within a budget, is deeply offensive to our whole system.
	We are talking not of billions of pounds but of what the Treasury from time to time describes as candle ends and paperclips. The amendment is fundamentally wrong. The House must decide what it believes is the necessary way of working that enables it to produce the best possible contribution to legislation. When it arrives at the conclusion, the means must be made available. We are not talking of vast sums, but even if we were, we would have to stand on that principle.

Lord Sheldon: Perhaps I may bring the House to face the realities of the situation. The Public Accounts Committee frequently commented on expenditure of public money, and it was right to do so. Sometimes, the Public Accounts Commission, which looks after the finances of the National Audit Office, made approaches to the House of Commons Commission about its need for money for certain things. As far as it could, the House of Commons Commission implemented its decisions, but it was certainly leaned on by the Government.
	The same thing will happen here. My noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, rightly, strongly advance all the arguments and make the case on the assumptions that we have discussed, but there will be a reaction from the Treasury, and I fear that there will be compromise. Do not think that we need only to pass a Motion to get some money and we will get it. What we can do is use our best endeavours to try to get as much as we can. It will be phased. The best solution that we can arrive at is the phasing that we expect in due course.

Lord Elton: The phasing needs to be in our hands and cannot be made logical if we do not know what the different items on the list cost. So we need a procedure such as that suggested by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. I add that not all of the necessary resources are financial. My noble friend mentioned human resources. We are a large part of those human resources. I have already had to resolve a conflict between whether I should attend debate on a Bill in which I had an interest in Grand Committee or on another Bill in which I had an interest on the Floor of the House.
	Having been a Minister in four departments and answerable for a fifth, I frequently find that I have strong views on legislation passing through your Lordships' House. If we are to have a multiplication of debate under the proposed Grand Committee scheme, it will be a question not so much of bi-location as tri-location or quinque-location if one is to discharge one's duties to the House. That must be taken into account before the recommendations are put into effect. I therefore support my noble friend's amendment.

The Earl of Erroll: I rise briefly to add to a commonsense approach. Having served on the Libraries and Computers Committee a short while ago, I know perfectly well that resources are limited. When I said, "Do we not run things? Cannot we decide?", I was told, "No, you are more of a user group". In other words, matters are determined outside and we are constrained by pre-set budgets. I am sure that all of that can be organised over a period of years behind the scenes, through all sorts of channels about which I do not know, but we need an element of common sense. We cannot just ask for money and expect to get it. That is the reality.
	On the question of our splitting our resources and time, I suspect that we shall have to consider other voting patterns. I refer to the business of trying to get here from meetings in Portcullis House to vote and back again. I have been in various committee meetings there. Suddenly, everyone gets up and off, and a meeting that may be quite important is completely disrupted. Members of the public are trying democratically to lobby their democratically elected Members, but those Members are on the telephone, on the pager or voting and are not there to be lobbied. We need to consider how to handle that.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment not only for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell but because it is a key amendment. If it were to be agreed, it would give time for consideration of the merits of the other amendments to which my noble friend referred—I shall not refer to them, and I shall limit my speech to this amendment. I agree with the amendments that he mentioned, to which I shall come later.
	Acceptance of the amendment would be an effective resolution of our difficulties. Our difficulties are complex. On any showing, it will be difficult to achieve a wholly intelligible and comprehensive result today. Further time is needed, and the amendment would provide it.

Lord Geddes: I shall reinforce the comments just made by my noble friend Lord Elton. We are talking of resources, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I should like to have seen a budget. However, we are not talking only of resources financial; we are talking also of resources human. That involves a large number of people, including Members of your Lordships' House, Clerks, Hansard writers and Doorkeepers. There are tremendous human resource implications.
	There is another thing that bothers me, about which I must ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. Lines 14 to 16 of the fifth report, which the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne would change, read as follows:
	"It seems to us unlikely that all the Group's recommendations can be implemented immediately. We"—
	the committee—
	"recommend that with effect from next session (2002–03) implementation should be phased, as resources become available".
	In paragraph 2, the report discusses a trial period of two parliamentary Sessions. I must be hypothetical for a moment: what will happen if something is delayed for 15 months? Will that mean that there will be only nine months of trial? Does the two-Session period start at the end of the 15-month period? The noble and learned Lord should tell us about that. We may have a very short trial period for some of the recommendations. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can tell us that it will all be done quickly, but the matter worries me.
	I do not want to get to my feet any more than I need, so I must also say now that I am concerned about this afternoon's procedure. I want to raise a short point regarding paragraph 12 of the report. However, as we are restricted to talking about amendments and as no amendments to paragraph 12 have been tabled, I am not sure when I can bring the matter up. Can the noble and learned Lord help me on that?

Lord Monson: The noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Geddes, have reminded us that it not just a question of resources but of human resources. There is a third element, to which the amendment draws our attention: accommodation resources. That is an important factor, and no amount of money from the Treasury will remedy the accommodation deficit in the short term.

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Geddes. He raised again the point that my noble friend Lord Mancroft and I raised about the first amendment and to which we did not get a reply.
	I put my name to the amendment for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned. It is a matter of principle whether we should allow the report to go through when we have no idea of the resource implications. That is a major defect in our proceedings. As other noble Lords said, there are also questions of human and financial resources, but we have no idea what will be needed fully to implement the report.
	Like my noble friend, I have served on a pre-legislative committee. It was on the Freedom of Information Bill. The committee was hurried; we were short of time in which to do the job properly. If we want proper pre-legislative scrutiny, we must be properly staffed, and we must be given adequate time. That is not happening at the moment, and we have no idea of what is needed to remedy that defect.

Lord Dubs: I do not have a particularly suspicious mind, but, having listened to most of the contributions this afternoon, I wonder how many were intended to be constructive and how many were intended to delay things. I would like to live long enough to see the recommendations implemented.

Lord Marlesford: I have a precise question for the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. The report says:
	"We recommend that with effect from next session . . . implementation should be phased".
	Who decides on the phasing? Who decides on the priorities? Is it the Procedure Committee? Is it the usual channels? Is it the House as a whole? Is it the noble and learned Lord?

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall say just a word because I know that everyone is anxious not to speak more than once in the debate. This is my twopennyworth.
	There is undoubtedly a general mood abroad that we should drag our practices out of the 19th century and into the 21st. Some Members, to judge by their practice, upbringing and general demeanour, would prefer, for legitimate reasons, to make as little change as possible. I understand that. I have no quibble with those who hold that view. However, when the Leader's Group was set up, we charged the best people available, on the basis of experience, with investigating the changes that could be made. They did so and made their recommendations.
	I supported the Leader's Group out of respect, first, for my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House and, secondly, for those in the group. Then, we had an interesting debate here, in which my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, played a major part. He confronted the House with the consequences of accepting that report. At the end of that debate, we decided that the Procedure Committee—a committee of experienced people from all parts of the House—should examine the matter. After debate—and some division—the committee put before the House what my noble and learned friend described as a package, a description that I accept.
	Some aspects of the report meet my concerns, and some do not. However, ultimately, I must decide whether I support the democratic process in which I have been involved—delegated democracy—and whether I agree, in general, with the report. Some Members want to make changes: where the report says "six", they want "five" and where it says "may", they want "shall". They want to know how long the changes will take and when the process will start. To them, those may be important matters; to me, the issue is whether we want to see the House do something about its procedures, regardless of whether the amendments are pressed.
	Having been here for 19 years, I have some experience. I have served at various levels. At times, Members who believe that they are doing the House and the country good are, in fact, being selfish. I sat here many nights, well past midnight, and found that Members on both sides of the House were dead beat. They were still here simply because the procedure said that any amendments that were put down would be dealt with, unless they were withdrawn. We crucify ourselves by sticking to established procedures. Of course, we can discuss the amendments relating to times; people will have a view about working on Thursday mornings and finishing at 7 p.m. Some of the things may not be to my liking. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and others have said that the point of the changes was to aid the Government. We should wait and see. My noble and learned friend the Leader of the House and my noble friend the Chief Whip may feel that they have got an easement of their burden, but "It ain't necessarily so". We do not know how it will pan out.
	I am prepared to trust my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House and his committee, which includes the usual channels. They are made of flesh and blood. They are not automatons, sent here simply to do somebody else's bidding. They have families and personal priorities too. Above all, however, as Members of the House, we ought to try to do things in such a way as is to the aid and comfort of all of us.
	I very much hope that this amendment will not be accepted; and that the other amendments, which, undoubtedly, are designed to be helpful, will be withdrawn at the appropriate time. The House—which means the Leader, the usual channels, and the Procedure Committee—should proceed as best it can.
	Reference has been made to the fact that we need to be careful about money. I merely reflect upon the experience in the other place. They have not just spent hundreds of thousands of pounds; they have spent millions of pounds in efforts to make their task as legislators easier. The noble Lords, Lord Sheldon and Lord Barnett, and others, can tell us that there are checks and balances involved and that you do not always get what you want, but you could have fooled me. One has but to compare the easement of conditions in the other place with the purgatory that has arisen here just because some of us wish to make our lot just a little easier.
	We must recognise that thousands, perhaps millions, of people outside this Chamber will not readily understand the reaction to this opportunity, which has been provided by the Leader, the other party leaders, as well as the usual channels. It is an opportunity for us to do something to make our job as parliamentarians a little easier. Therefore, I do not think that we ought to look this gift horse in the mouth. I very much hope that that will also prove to be the attitude of all noble Lords.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may make a very simple observation at this point. If the Procedure Committee had been able to tell us what the costs of such changes would be as regards both human resources and money, there probably would not be a problem. However, the problem is that the committee has not been able to do so. I cannot imagine any situation in private life in which one would embark upon a course of action, which clearly will be expensive in many ways, without having an idea of the eventual cost. It seems to me to be practical common sense that we ought to have that information before we make any final decision.
	I am not disputing the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, or the fact that we need change. However, it seems to me to be quite extraordinarily irresponsible for this Chamber to be prepared to make such a move when we have been told by members of the Procedure Committee that they do not yet know what it will cost, and that they are going to tootle along and see what happens. That does not seem to me to be a common-sense approach.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may deal with the noble Baroness's general observation. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, we are not analogous to running a public company. We do not attempt to run our business exactly replicating the directors of Enron or of WorldCom; we are doing something infinitely more important. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, rightly said, we are attempting to discharge our duties as a House of Parliament.
	The noble Baroness, and many other speakers, asked about the costs involved in these changes. The answer is that we cannot say because, by its very nature, the process is incremental; and, indeed, is intended to be incremental. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, persuaded a large majority of noble Lords of his view—I am offering no comment of my own—that a significant injustice might well have been done to two dead members of the Royal Air Force. That was the noble Lord's view. Assisted by other noble Lords who were of the same view, the noble Lord persuaded your Lordships that a committee should be set up to investigate the fatalities in the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre. I am taking no position as to who was right, or who was wrong. Did any noble Lords think that they should challenge the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on how much such a procedure would cost? Indeed, due to the nature of things, how could he have answered? It would have been quite impossible for him to do so.
	Time and again, we have said that we hope to reform this Chamber gradually and incrementally. There is a hope expressed in the recommendations of the Leader's Group that, eventually, virtually all major government Bills will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. All those in the Leader's Group knew perfectly well that that would be a matter of years, not months. Unless I know which Bill will have pre-legislative scrutiny—whether by the House of Commons, the House of Lords, or by both Houses—how can I conceivably cost it? We know that there will be significant savings, because the cost of staff overtime will decline if we finish business at about 10 o'clock at night; and that applies also to the cost of transport, and so on.
	I echo what my noble friend Lord Graham said. At the end of the day, it comes down to this fundamental question: do we wish to improve our practices to make our true work achievable? If that is so, we need to go forward incrementally. I accept the challenge put forward, but it is not possible to cost such reforms. The noble Baroness and I both participated to our mutual benefit in the Grand Committee proceedings on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, but I could not possibly have costed that process before we knew how many days that committee would sit.
	As the noble Lords, Lord Geddes and Lord Elton, along with other speakers, have said, we are not simply talking about cash resources; we are talking about accommodation. That is why, when your Lordships were all engaged on a beach somewhere last August, my noble friend Lord Carter and I obtained authority to buy Fielden House for quite a significant sum. We did so because we believed that we would need that accommodation resource. It will take a little while for it to be refurbished, and the final plans have yet to be completed.
	We need to take a view on such matters. Are we going to bring about reform in this Chamber? I accept that we need resource by way of training the Committee Clerks, who are admirable in quality, extremely diligent, and very often overworked. But we already set up committees without costings. I can give other examples, but I fear that I would be straining noble Lords' patience.
	I am sorry to put it quite so plainly, but, at the end of the day, we must decide whether we want these changes to take place. Thereafter, incrementally—patiently sometimes—we will have to will the resource. I shall give noble Lords but one example. The Liberal Democrats, the noble and gallant Lord the Cross-Bench Convenor, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, all put forward their bids and the resource has been obtained. I do not say that by way of self-congratulation; I say that because I think that it was a worthy, moral purpose to bring about. We can do it if we want to. But if we want to clad ourselves again with the carapace of the past centuries, we are all in the wrong place.

Lord Geddes: Will the noble and learned Lord be kind enough to tell us how any Members of your Lordships' House can broach a subject in this Committee that is not actually the subject of an amendment?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: There are two points at issue. First, I wish that they would not do so; and, secondly, if they do, your Lordships' ingenuity knows no bounds.
	I have considered the noble Lord's point about questions being too long and answers too lengthy. I believe that to be a general view, of which the Procedure Committee took note. I am sure that those who are guilty in that respect—that is, of course, anyone but oneself—will pay due regard to those comments.

Lord Trefgarne: With the Committee's permission, I shall bring to an end the debate at least on this amendment. Surely it is common ground that these proposals will cost something. It is common ground that they will be introduced over a year or so. Similarly, it is common ground that no doubt the Treasury will provide the funds being sought. I seek only to ask noble Lords to inquire what it is that we are asking for.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 192.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Grocott: This may be an appropriate moment to take the Statement. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Northern Ireland

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before I repeat the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I have been given quite recently some information that your Lordships will wish to know. There has been an attack with explosives on the property of our colleague, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. At this stage—I am giving the details, obviously, as soon as I am able—the Army advises me that the Continuity IRA has telephoned a local newspaper claiming responsibility. A recognised codeword was used. I mention this because your Lordships obviously would wish to know and, more fundamentally, we would wish to send a message of unswerving solidarity to a parliamentary colleague.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I turn now to the Statement, which is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about Northern Ireland.
	"After the meeting which he and the Taoiseach had with the parties at Hillsborough on 4th July, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that we would reflect on what had been said about continuing levels of violence in Northern Ireland and consider what could be done to restore confidence in the political process.
	"As my right honourable friend said, there can be no acceptable or tolerable level of violence. The principles of democracy and non-violence, which were laid down by the international body under Senator Mitchell in 1996 and formed the basis on which the political negotiations took place, are as relevant now as they were then. As a signal of shared purpose in eradicating violence, I have today written to all the parties asking them to reaffirm their total and absolute commitment to these principles.
	"In recent weeks, and in particular over last weekend, we have seen serious disturbances which have brought violence to the streets of Belfast and elsewhere, culminating in the appalling murder of Gerard Lawlor by so-called loyalists early on Monday morning. A young man barely in his teens when the peace talks started, and not out of them when his life was so cruelly taken. This was not an isolated incident. Over the previous 72 hours there had been five attempted murders, one shooting, two sectarian arson attacks and four serious public order incidents. These disgraceful events benefit no one and have been a source of anguish to victims and all those who live in the areas concerned.
	"I said recently that we would oppose by all means those wedded to violence. The security forces are bearing down on the paramilitaries to deny them the freedom to operate; to prevent murders, shootings, pipe and petrol bomb attacks. More than 250 additional police officers and soldiers have been brought in to dominate the interfaces in north Belfast. They are stopping and checking the movement of individuals and vehicles in order to prevent armed gangs entering and leaving the area. Known paramilitaries are being kept under close surveillance.
	"This means that more police and Army resources are now deployed in north Belfast than at any point since the beginning of the cease-fires, while routine patrolling elsewhere by the Army has been dramatically reduced. The PSNI is pursuing a variety of proactive and reactive methods to disrupt paramilitary movement in the area.
	"Since violence flared in Belfast at the beginning of May, the police have made a number of arrests for terrorist and public order offences, ranging from riotous behaviour to possession of petrol bombs. Since 4th May, in north and east Belfast, 21 loyalists have been arrested, with 15 charged. Over the same period, 12 republicans have been arrested and all were charged.
	"The police are determined that the perpetrators of the violence should be brought to book and will pursue them by every means available to them. I share that aim. I have therefore asked my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General to lead an examination of police powers, bail arrangements and the scope for additional criminal offences. He will also examine whether there are any changes in the criminal law that could be made to facilitate successful prosecutions for acts of terrorism, violence and organised crime.
	"All of this would complement the Proceeds of Crime Bill which we hope will receive Royal Assent today and which will give us a powerful weapon to hit paramilitary finances and the greed of individuals.
	"But security measures alone will not solve this problem. That is why I also said recently that we would work in partnership with those who wanted to engage in local dialogue. Following the meeting at Hillsborough, I met several of the political parties and encouraged closer and more systematic dialogue at local level.
	"In the light of recent events, at my request, my honourable friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, the Parliamentary Secretary, has now initiated further urgent discussions with local representatives, including those with links to paramilitary organisations, in an effort to develop the kind of partnership structures at local level which will help prevent such disturbances in future. We are willing to spend as long as it takes with those who want to work in partnership with us and with each other. Those who do not want to do so should face the full force of the law.
	"I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is essential that things should now calm down and that we should have a settled summer. It would be intolerable for the political progress on which the future well-being of Northern Ireland depends to be held to ransom by the murderous activities of paramilitaries on either side. It would be equally intolerable if the progress valued by the many were to become hostage to the few who are committed to violence.
	"People want us to face up to this honestly. It would, I believe, help us and the public to have more transparent information about the involvement of paramilitary groups in such activities and the general pattern of paramilitary activity in the community.
	"In a related area—the involvement of paramilitaries in racketeering and organised crime—I have already asked Professor Ron Goldstock to assist me in assessing the scale of the problem.
	"I can see a case for doing something similar, to shine a light on levels of paramilitary violence in the community, both loyalist and republican, and to supplement the judgments I make about the cease-fires. I will consult widely about this idea and how it might best be done, and make my views known after the summer break.
	"It is now four and a half years since the second IRA cease-fire. The cease-fires have made a huge contribution to reducing the appalling human cost of the conflict. This is the 30th anniversary of the worst year of the Troubles, when 470 people lost their lives. Even 10 years ago, the figure was nearly 100. Last year it was 17. So far this year, six people have lost their lives. We should never forget in the midst of all our problems just how far we have come. But six is still too many. Of course things are a lot better than they were. But that is not the only test. The real test is whether they are as good as people have a right to expect.
	"They expect it of all paramilitaries and all parties. But there is a particular responsibility on any party participating in the government of Northern Ireland. It must appreciate that operating jointly in government, as the agreement requires, calls for a measure of responsibility and trust. Trust depends on confidence that the transition from violence to democracy continues apace, has not stalled and will be completed without delay.
	"The recent statement by the IRA acknowledging the grief and pain of the relatives of those who died at the hands of the IRA and reaffirming its commitment to the peace process was a welcome step in the right direction.
	"We also have to acknowledge, though, that more than four years after the agreement was concluded, welcome as it is, it is simply not enough for paramilitary organisations on cease-fires to have brought an end to their terrorist campaigns.
	"Confidence in the process requires confidence that there will never again be a return to those dark days; in particular, that preparations are not going on under the surface for a resumption of a terrorist campaign; and that paramilitary organisations will be stood down altogether as soon as possible. Whatever their real intentions—and in the case of the IRA I share my right honourable friend's assessment that it has never been further from a return to its campaign—nothing could be more damaging than the sense that options were being kept open in that way.
	"The judgments I make about the cease-fires have to be made in the round, taking into account all relevant factors, including those which the statute obliges me to take into account. That is what I will continue to do. But with the passage of time it is right that these judgments should become increasingly rigorous. In reviewing the cease-fires, I will give particular weight to any substantiated information that a paramilitary organisation is engaged in training, targeting, acquisition or development of arms or weapons, or any similar preparations for a terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. I say to the House—lest there be any doubt on the matter—that I will not hesitate to use the powers Parliament has given me if the circumstances require it.
	"There is also still a threat from organisations, both loyalist and republican, which are not on cease-fire. The Irish authorities have already had some notable successes against dissident republicans. Separately and together, we will counter those who cling to violence with all the resources at our disposal.
	"I have made it absolutely clear that violence is unacceptable and pledged once again to do all in our power to achieve its elimination. I will not pretend to the House that it is within the Government's power to solve all these problems on our own or by security measures alone.
	"That is why we must keep in mind the enormous benefits which the political agreement has brought and will continue to bring as we complete its implementation. These include government of Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland, with locally elected representatives in a cross-community administration.
	"The stability of those institutions is not a concession to paramilitaries. On the contrary, it provides a platform for putting their activities in the past, where they belong. The steps I have announced today are most definitely not intended to threaten the democratic institutions, but to buttress democracy against violence. We should never forget how much we have to lose. It is essential that the political representatives on all sides who have done so much to create and sustain the agreement should, by reaffirming and observing their commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, ensure its continuation.
	"I have set out the measures in response to the violence in Northern Ireland. But the success of the peace process will require courage, patience and endurance from everyone involved. It will be a long haul. But that could not be otherwise in what is an historic attempt to end what is at heart an ancient conflict".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. Perhaps, with your Lordships' indulgence, I may be allowed to join with the noble and learned Lord in expressing sympathy to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, as regards whatever happened this afternoon. The noble Viscount has been outstanding in his courage throughout the past 30 years. He deserves our best wishes.
	For those of us who are familiar with the affairs of Northern Ireland, it is not difficult to see why the Government were forced to make this Statement. Over recent months there has been an alarming deterioration in confidence in the agreement on the part of the people of Northern Ireland. Many would say that the Government have completely lost their way and that in many areas the rule of law no longer applies.
	While many of the institutions established under the agreement are working well—the Executive and the Assembly, for example—the agreement has failed to deliver in one key area. Despite the fact that all those who signed up to the Belfast agreement pledged to pursue their objective by exclusively peaceful and democratic means, paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland remains a daily fact of life for too many people. The violence is obviously on a lower scale than it was, say, 10 years ago, although in certain parts of Belfast it is very similar. Mothers are afraid to let their children into the streets. Families wonder whether the one who has gone shopping will come back; the fear is permanently present if someone is late. That is happening today in many parts of the Province.
	Over the past four years we have seen a number of breaches of cease-fires to which the Government have simply turned a blind eye. In recent months the breaches have become even more blatant. There has been the violence in and around the Short Strand area of east Belfast, clearly orchestrated by republican and loyalist paramilitaries. There have the events at Castlereagh—almost certainly the work of the IRA. We have had evidence of the renewed targeting of politicians and military installations. There have been the revelations of IRA involvement with the narco-terrorist group, FARC, and, as is thought likely, with the testing of new weapons in Colombia. In parts of Belfast, beatings, shootings and mutilations take place on a daily basis. Racketeering, intimidation and smuggling are big business, raking in millions for paramilitary gang bosses. Surely all of this is a far cry from the prospect of the complete end to violence offered by the Belfast agreement.
	Will the noble and learned Lord please define for the House what will in future constitute a breach of the cease-fire? Four years on, there is little sign that we are much closer to what the agreement describes as,
	"the complete disarmament of all paramilitary organisations",
	or to what the Prime Minister said would be,
	"the progressive disbandment of paramilitary structures".
	Do the Government accept that PIRA is better armed today and a technically more sophisticated force than it has ever been? It is these failings that have created a deep crisis of confidence in the peace agreement, particularly among moderate unionists, many of whom, it should be remembered, were reluctantly persuaded to support the agreement, and such factors as the release of terrorist prisoners, on the basis that it offered an end to violence and after hearing the Prime Minister's pledges.
	Unless confidence is restored, we shall face—indeed, I believe we are facing—a real crisis and the possible collapse of the political institutions before we even reach next May's elections. I do not believe that the Statement will do anything to help that situation.
	I welcome some parts of the Statement, but I regret that it contains very little of substance. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will forgive me for reminding him that we have been here before. When the Prime Minister defined the cease-fire during the referendum campaign on the agreement in May 1998, he said that a "complete and unequivocal cease-fire" meant,
	"an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
	I shall not say that he repeated it verbatim, but I heard him almost repeat that statement about an hour ago in another place.
	The Prime Minister went on to say that the tests against which the cease-fires would be judged would become "more rigorous over time". Yet the very reverse appears to have happened. The tests have become less rigorous, indeed they are almost non-existent.
	So will the noble and learned Lord give an assurance that, following today's Statement, there will be no more fudges and no more blind eyes? Furthermore, will he confirm that the Government will not tolerate any further breaches of the cease-fires; and that, unlike in the past four years, when many breaches have taken place, the Government will act?
	The noble and learned Lord said that the Government would use the powers that Parliament had given them should the circumstances so require. Can he assure the House that, in the event of IRA breaches, the Government will not hesitate to use their powers under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to table a Motion before the Assembly seeking the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the Executive? That is not a very strong threat, particularly if it is likely that the SDLP would not support such a Motion. It would be valueless in that situation.
	Regarding those paramilitaries without political representation in the Executive or the Assembly, republican dissidents and the loyalist groups, will the noble and learned Lord undertake to consult with the Dublin Government and those in the United States Administration to see what further effective penalties can be imposed so that specifying an organisation has some real rather than merely symbolic meaning?
	Will the noble and learned Lord state clearly that any party in breach of the agreement or linked to a paramilitary group not maintaining a complete and unequivocal cease-fire will not be allowed to sit in the Executive following next May's elections?
	I welcome what the noble and learned Lord said about the need to tackle the appalling street violence in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland. Only this week we saw another sickening murder—of a young Catholic, Gerard Lawlor, which I am sure we all deeply regret. However, it was one of many attacks on both Protestants and Catholics. Any initiatives to deal with this will have our support.
	Does the noble and learned Lord not agree, however, that the most effective counter to violence is a well-motivated and full-strength police force? Does he therefore share my alarm at the current strength of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is already below the levels envisaged by Patten in infinitely more favourable security circumstances? Will he now give a categorical assurance that police numbers will not be allowed to fall any further, and that in the foreseeable future there can be no question of phasing out the full-time reserve who are literally indispensable?
	The Conservative Party continues to support the Belfast agreement. We desperately want it to succeed. However, the situation is now critical. The Government have a short window of opportunity to rebuild confidence and restore momentum in the political process. I urge them to grasp it. I seriously fear the consequences if they do not do so.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement by his right honourable friend in another place. I should like first to say that we on these Benches unequivocally condemn the murder of Gerard Lawlor and extend our sympathies to his family. Similarly, we would associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed about the explosion on the property of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.
	We absolutely agree that there are no acceptable levels of violence, and accordingly welcome the steps that have been announced today by the Government. We particularly underline the need to promote further local dialogue and partnerships. The most effective way of dealing with terrorism and general mayhem is for the local communities to come together to make clear that they will dissociate themselves from it and do all they can to stop it.
	I have two questions for the Lord Privy Seal. First, how will the Secretary of State aim to progress his intention to supplement the judgments he makes about the cease-fires? Will he be introducing some facility for the objective independent assessment of paramilitary activity in relation to the cease-fires? We particularly welcomed that part of the Statement which said that he sought to supplement the judgments he made about the cease-fires, and that he was willing to consult widely on the idea of how it might best be done and make his views known after the Summer Recess.
	We think that that is an important way forward. So often in Northern Ireland, it has been necessary to bring in both internal and external assessors to make objective statements about situations which were otherwise contentious. It helps to take some of the contention out of debate. We would welcome that if the Secretary of State were so minded.
	Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord agree that political party leaderships should redouble their efforts to influence the paramilitaries on both sides of the community? Very often in this House—I have no reason to disagree with it—it is invariably assumed that Sinn Fein can exercise great influence over the IRA. Rarely, however, is it assumed that the various Unionist parties have the capacity effectively to constrain the dissident loyalist paramilitaries. Does the Minister agree, given the greater degree of violence exhibited by the loyalist groups recently, that much greater efforts should be made by the elected Unionist leaderships to lessen these recent outbreaks of violence which are becoming a regular feature in the Short Strand area among many others?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken.
	I shall, if I may, respond immediately to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. The step of asking Professor Goldstock was a very imaginative one; a subtle step where subtlety is required. Professor Goldstock is of course internationally known as an expert on organised crime. As my right honourable friend said, he sees a case for shining a light on levels of paramilitary violence, which is, I think, what was endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Smith. My right honourable friend is certainly perfectly open-minded. He is happy to consult widely and wants to come to an informed conclusion in about the timescale that the noble Lord mentioned.
	I think that the noble Lord is absolutely right on party political leadership. There has been very significant—allegedly loyalist—violence. It is not simply elected politicians who have a duty; of course, there are community leaders. I have to say that, on the information available to me, some community leaders from both sides have been trying to calm tempers. One needs to bear in mind also, I think, that some crime is deeply and desperately anti-social but is not necessarily politically based or motivated. Organised gangs may pretend to have a political motive and motivation, but what really drives them is the thought of vast amounts of cash. It is an extremely attractive proposition to them, if they can get away with it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about the Secretary of State's powers under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Of course, the Secretary of State has certain statutory obligations in Section 30(7) of that Act. If he is minded to come to a conclusion that would require his serving a notice on the Presiding Officer requiring a motion to be moved for the removal from office of a Minister or junior Minister, he has particularly to take into account whether the Minister, junior Minister or relevant political party,
	"is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve his or its objectives . . . has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence . . . is directing or promoting acts of violence by other persons . . . is co-operating . . . with any Commission of the kind referred to in",
	the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
	The Secretary of State is resolute. He intends to use those powers if they seem to be appropriate. He is bound, of course, by those statutory considerations. However, it is useful, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, for his judgment to be supplemented by the sort of material that has been described.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, put the proposition that the Provisional IRA is better armed today and more sophisticated than ever before. I personally would not be in a position to comment on that. I know that various views are held, and they may be rightly held. My proposition, however, is that there has been the maintenance, by and large, of an effective cease-fire. The numbers that I spoke of in the Statement are not used for forensic or political advantage. However, the decline from 470 to six—six too many, this year—is something that has been worth an enormous struggle and great patience.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, quoted the Prime Minister's words, with which of course I entirely agree. He is quite right that the Prime Minister has spoken them on a number of occasions. I think that the noble Lord is right in saying that we can not have fudges or blind eyes. The law has to apply to all.
	As for the question on Dublin and the United States administration, I can happily reconfirm that relations between the White House, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland in Dublin have never been more co-operative. It is heartening indeed to see the successes that the republic's forces have achieved in their fight against terrorists. It may be necessary to remind ourselves that the powers that obtain in the Republic of Ireland in relation to the seizure of assets have historically been much more vigorous and draconian than anything that we have had, which is why the Secretary of State made reference to the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is to receive Royal Assent today.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me about the judgment that the Secretary of State might come to following the May elections for the Assembly in Belfast. I repeat that he will discharge his statutory duty on the grounds set out in Section 30(7).
	As regards Patten and the police force, I agree entirely with the noble Lord that a fully equipped and supported police force is essential. It is a great cause of regret that although the Roman Catholic Church has encouraged its members to join the police force, Sinn Fein has not. I believe that on previous occasions the noble Lord asked why Sinn Fein has not done so. I have no answer to that save that I agree with him. I refer to the review by the oversight commissioner announced on 30th April. The commissioner can report on any aspect of the new policing arrangements.
	I believe that I have answered the questions that were asked. I am particularly grateful that both noble Lords who spoke endorsed what all your Lordships feel about the cowardly attack on a good parliamentarian who serves on the police board and discharges his duty admirably.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I, too, endorse what has been said by noble Lords in respect of the cowardly attack on the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. I condemn all killings and all violence whether that violence emanates from loyalist or from republicans in Northern Ireland. It is a scourge on our community. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal accept that we must be more specific in the analysis of the problem if we are to tackle it in an effective way? Does he agree that loyalist violence—although I condemn it totally—emanates largely from independent action by thugs who are set about with sectarianism and whose main objective is to kill a member of the Roman Catholic community? That particular violence could be dealt with much more effectively if Sinn Fein was willing to promote among its supporters support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That lack of support and the inability of the police service to operate without fear of attack on its members inhibit the war against loyalist terrorism which could be controlled. There is comparatively little support for that kind of terrorism.
	The failure of Sinn Fein members of the Executive to condemn the attempted murder of a young Roman Catholic police officer a few weeks ago is tantamount to support for that crime. It is by that attitude that Adams and McGuinness stand condemned. Do the Government recognise that through their inactivity in regard to implementing promises that were made four years ago they are hanging a millstone around the neck of David Trimble? He cannot be expected to carry alone the burden of the Belfast agreement. Will the Government stop ignoring the small infringements which mount up to the extent that we are now reaching a point where perhaps the whole edifice of democracy could crumble around our heads?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not for the first time I am grateful for the robust way in which the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has spoken. I absolutely agree that loyalists or republicans who are breaking the law need to be condemned in the robust way that the noble Lord did.
	There is undoubtedly an overlap between alleged political activity on the streets, which is criminal, and simply destructive crime. The noble Lord is right to say that a good deal of that crime constitutes independent action by thugs—to use his word—motivated by sectarianism. I believe that most of us consider that poor Mr Lawlor was murdered simply because he was a Roman Catholic. That is how it appears.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is right to say that any attack on a serving police officer ought to be condemned by everyone in the community, whatever their political views, and by those with no political views. I repeat that it is a source of regret to Her Majesty's Government that Sinn Fein will not encourage those who support it at the ballot box to support the police directly by joining them or less directly through general support in the community.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I hope that I may direct the noble and learned Lord's mind to the words which appeared early in the Statement concerning the activity of the security forces along the interfaces between the communities. Is that not a token, in an oblique way, of the situation in Northern Ireland's great cities, Belfast and Londonderry, and of the existence of no-go areas which are as surely a fact now as they were 30 years ago when physical barriers existed? The security forces operate along the interfaces. Will the noble and learned Lord assure us that there are no parts of those two great cities which are not regularly policed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland? For, by all accounts, it is within those areas where gangs of terrorists and members of terrorist armies maintain their form of order and their laws to protect their criminal activities involving drugs, protection rackets and other such things which finance their armies. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that those forces have the power so to intimidate witnesses that although it is widely known who committed the atrocity at Omagh it has proved impossible to bring them to justice because Sinn Fein/IRA is protecting them?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord has made that final point on other occasions outside the Chamber as well as inside it. I do not know whether the noble Lord is correct. I suspect that there is undoubtedly intimidation of witnesses. However, I cannot attribute that to Sinn Fein on any material that I have.
	The noble Lord mentioned the reference to "interfaces" in the Statement. However, that takes into account geography, social facts and history. There are distinct communities in the areas referred to. There is no question of no-go areas. The action that was taken was remarkably robust. Over 250 additional police officers and soldiers have been brought in "to dominate the interfaces". They are stopping and checking vehicles and individuals in an attempt to strike at exactly the vice the noble Lord described; namely, the operations of armed gangs. However, I reiterate my earlier comment: it is a mistake for us always to think that armed criminal gangs are motivated by any form of politics. They are motivated by greed and may use sectarianism as some sort of despicable cover for what is actually straightforward criminal activity.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble and learned friend referred to the situation at the interfaces. I seek more detail on the situation in north Belfast. He referred to an additional 250 members of the security forces who have been brought in. Is my noble and learned friend satisfied that the security forces have adequate personnel in that area to deal with the violence which seems to be occurring on a nightly basis?
	Furthermore, is there any evidence of political links with the loyalists or republicans involved in the violence in north Belfast; is the Real IRA or some other republican group involved? It would be helpful if the Government knew.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs. Ultimately, these decisions are rightly operational decisions for the Chief Constable, who is, and remains, the chief security adviser to the Secretary of State. His judgment has been that these officers and soldiers are required in that particular area. I repeat: it is not simply the stopping of vehicles; it is actually keeping surveillance on known paramilitaries.
	My noble friend asked about evidence. We know there was a published claim by a particular paramilitary organisation for the cruel murder of Gerald Lawlor. Evidence is hard to come by; intelligence is different. Unfortunately, the latter is not always available for use in court under our present system.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether there is a sense of urgency about what is happening; it certainly does not come through in the Statement. We are told that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will,
	"lead an examination of police powers, bail arrangements and the scope for additional criminal offences".
	He will also examine other things. We are told that the Secretary of State has already asked Professor Ron Goldstock to assist in assessing the scale of the problem. The Secretary of State says that he sees,
	"a case for doing something similar, to shine a light on levels of paramilitary violence in the community",
	and to supplement judgments made about cease-fires,
	"I will consult widely about... how it might best be done, and make my views known after the summer break".
	That does not give one a great sense of confidence that the matter is being tackled with the sense of urgency that everyone in this House would want, particularly in light of the closeness to home of the attack on the property of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point, which I will try to divide into two parts. There is suspicion in Northern Ireland—so far as I am aware—that the true facts about paramilitary activity may not always be fully disclosed. In some circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointed out, witnesses are intimidated and cases are not brought to court, so that the public feels—legitimately, I believe—that if there is no prosecution and court case no proper information is being disclosed. That is what my right honourable friend is talking about; he wants to shine a light on it.
	It seems to me that he is wise to cast the net wide, as he did with Professor Goldstock on organised criminal activity, and he wants some assistance, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, to supplement his judgment about what is actually going on, as opposed to successful convictions, for instance. Unfortunately, while a good deal of criminal activity does not go undetected as to its commission, it is not successfully prosecuted for various reasons.
	So there is a sense of urgency; that is illustrated by the fact that the Secretary of State was adamant that he wished to make the Statement before the House of Commons rose for the Summer Recess. There is no doubt that the security forces, with the Chief Constable—our chief adviser—are extremely rigorous in what they are attempting to do.
	That is not easy, because most successful police work depends on the freely given, undivided consent and support of the population. That is not universally to be found in these areas.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend tell the House whether there is any intelligence to suggest that some of those engaged in the peace process from either or both traditions are using the paramilitaries who stand behind them to try to influence the outcome of next May's Assembly elections? Does he agree that none of us can allow the paramilitaries to thwart the will of the peoples of the island of Ireland, who expect their elected politicians to make the peace process work?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely accept what my noble friend said in his last proposition. One cannot use surrogates simply to pretend that one is a legitimate politician. I am not going to pretend to your Lordships that all is well—it would be foolish to try to do so. It plainly is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, described.
	I will say—although I appreciate that it is scant comfort and I know perfectly well that I have not suffered at first hand—that the statement made by the IRA recently was extremely significant. Many will say that it was not sufficient. Many will say that they disagree with parts of it. But it is an extremely significant statement that bears re-reading and re-consideration. I say that with all humility, because I recognise that there are those in this House who have served as Secretaries of State and who have much more knowledge of Northern Ireland than I. But I would put forward that proposition.
	It is not appropriate, wise, or indeed customary, for me to say anything about intelligence matters for the usual convention.

Baroness Blood: My Lords, I read the Statement this afternoon with a great deal of scepticism. It put me in mind of an old song, "Words are all I have to steal your heart away". The Statement talks about security forces bearing down on and denying freedom for paramilitaries to operate. Bearing in mind that this is my area, so I am aware of what is happening, perhaps I may ask whether there will be 250 extra police? I am asking that because coming up to 11th July we were informed by the PSNI that there had been stockpiling of weapons and that buses of groups of young men had been taken into the area for riots and were not stopped. So will these police be an extra benefit to that area? I would hope to see them on the streets.
	My second question to the noble and learned Lord is about the research already referred to, the results of which will be available after the summer break. For many of us, that is probably too long. Will the research be acted on? We have seen so many pieces of research; I heard someone saying in the lunch hour that Northern Ireland is the most researched area here.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's first question is yes, these are 250 additional police officers and soldiers. I take her ironic—or perhaps not even ironic—comment about Northern Ireland being the most researched community in the world. The Secretary of State has not gone to the trouble of appointing an expert on organised crime or setting out his colours here simply to ignore the matter; he is treating it with great seriousness.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I express my concern for my noble kinsman Lord Brookeborough, and I hope that for family reasons I may be allowed to include the Viscountess in those words. Those of us who put questions to Ministers after Statements sometimes ask for debates and are reasonably diverted to the business managers. Can the Minister give us any encouragement that when we return in October we might have a general stocktaking debate on Northern Ireland to concentrate during the intervening recess the minds of those of us who take these matters seriously?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I will certainly give that suggestion every appropriate consideration and discuss it. I know that the noble Lord will smile with the business managers, but I do not control the business in this House. I will give it every proper consideration.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I endorse my noble friend Lord Brooke's suggestion. Of course one wants to think about the Statement. One point in it gives me particular anxiety; that relating to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General having been asked to lead an examination of police powers, bail arrangements and scope for additional criminal offences and to see whether any changes can be made in the criminal law.
	I understand that when any government comes under the pressure of events, there is a great urge—I would say, temptation—to do something of that character. I offer the thought that it nearly always comes back to haunt you. Things done in a hurry on that basis nearly always turn out to have more disadvantages than advantages. I suggest that what is needed here is not new laws or powers—they have been thought of carefully by successive governments over a long time—but to bring the police up to strength.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot disagree with any of those propositions. The Patten review will be reporting on the progress of the first year. There is the temptation to do things quickly just for the sake of doing things. The noble and learned Lord and I would both recognise the dangerous dogs syndrome. Perhaps I ought not to intrude into recent history. There are nevertheless some aspects that could be looked at quite promptly—for instance, how bail may be working, which it is perfectly helpful and useful to have a Law Officer do.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the Secretary of State at any stage consider the question of what might be called a payment on account by Sinn Fein/IRA—that is, a commitment to allow the return of the exiled families? I welcome the fact that he is going to shine a light. It is time that it was shone and I am delighted. However, most of the suggestions will not mean anything to the ordinary man and woman on the street in Northern Ireland. They need to be told that something real is going to happen.
	My other point is that we are not looking solely at a collection of criminals operating because they want to make money. That applies to either side, loyalist or republican. Certainly, in the case of Sinn Fein/IRA, we are looking at paramilitaries who wish to continue to exert total political power. It is a political issue. Therefore it seems to me vital that the Secretary of State should without delay set in motion some kind of negotiation with Sinn Fein/IRA to require them to turn off the tap, as they were able to do when Clinton came and as they could do again. If they want to show real regret and a real wish to improve matters, let them do that. Let us forget the past and ask them to act on the future.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot dispute what the noble Baroness says. We have discussed it frequently and that is as it should be. There is pressure put on about the return of those who have been driven from their homes. The noble Baroness and I have been in recent correspondence at some length about it. I was not suggesting that some groups are not carrying out criminal activity because they want to fund their political purposes. I am suggesting that there is sometimes a tendency to overlook the fact that some people commit crimes of violence and greed because they are violent, greedy people and have no connection with politics. One has only to look at the drug-related crimes in Dublin, for instance. I have never heard anyone pretend that they are related to any political activity.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

House again in Committee.

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 3, line 25, at end insert "We also recommend that the Procedure Committee should be asked to make recommendations for protecting and promoting the interests of backbench members of the House when proposals are made for the membership of select joint domestic and pre-legislative scrutiny committees of the House."

Lord Lucas: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. The same subject is covered in the Motion in my name on the Order Paper that comes after we have debated the Procedure Committee report. They are three ways of tackling the same subject. I very much hope that the Leader of the House has a fourth way that we can all agree to.
	The usual channels are a wonderful institution. We benefit a great deal from them. They work very hard on our behalf and, in my experience, by and large they achieve an equable and reasonable result. However, as Back-Benchers we must not forget that the usual channels are not us. They have their own agenda. On two or three occasions this week alone, their judgment of what should be done with a particular Motion or amendment has clearly not been the same as that of Back-Benchers.
	Most of the time, in the normal operation of the House, that is probably survivable and it is probably a fudge that we can get along with. However, the changes to be brought about by this very desirable report from the Procedure Committee will move it up a notch. Our core business—the consideration of government legislation—will go through a phase in which most Members of this House will not have a right to participate. Only a limited number of Members of this House will be able to participate in a joint pre-legislative scrutiny committee. Even on a committee of this House, only a dozen or so of us will be able to serve. Those Members who have been through that process will be the core of our expertise in later stages of the Bill. They will have done the work and been through the arguments and will have the knowledge.
	There must be a temptation for the Government to make sure that those committees are compliant to their wishes. I do not doubt that the same applies to my Front Bench. We have seen that problem arising in another place, where there were famously arguments over the composition of some of their committees, which in their case the Back-Benchers have won and we have reforms to consolidate that.
	We do not face the same political edginess in this House, but we are in danger of moving towards it. As Back-Benchers, we must make sure that our mechanisms for appointing Peers to committees that will arise out of the reforms are open to scrutiny and participation.
	I have just finished participating in a Select Committee of this House on animal experimentation. I was chosen for it because my noble friend Lord Henley tapped me on the shoulder in the Library one day and said, "I am looking for someone to participate in this. Would you be interested?" That is all very fine and dandy, but how many other Members of this House who might have been interested were offered the chance? There were no committed animal rights activists on that committee. How do we know that there is not someone in this House who has that as a passion? Such a person would have been an appropriate member of the committee and ought to have been offered the opportunity to participate.
	It has sort of been an ambition of mine for a long time that I might be a member of the Procedure Committee. After today's debate, perhaps I am losing that ambition. I have never known how to achieve it or how the members of the Procedure Committee are chosen.
	We ought to move to greater openness so that we, as Back-Benchers, know what is being done. There will always be the necessary balancing and it is generally for our convenience that that should be done by the usual channels. To try to reduce that to the democracy of the House would be tedious, time-consuming and not necessarily accurate. However, what is done ought to be done openly. My proposal is that we should each have the opportunity to put our names down for committees. In the case of long-running committees we could put our names down to be considered next time a vacancy arises. On ad hoc committees, we should give ourselves a little time in which Members can say that they would like to be considered. Those lists of people who are interested should be open to all of us for inspection so that should the Government do something unthinkable, such as introduce a Bill to lock people up for life merely because psychiatrists think they might commit a crime, even though they have never committed any, there would be a chance for those of us who, perhaps against the wishes of our Front Bench, hold the liberties of the individual above the convenience of the state to be sure that our opinions were represented on that committee. When we came to consider the Motion asking us to agree the committee, we should be able to know whether someone whom the House considered the key expert in the area had put their name forward and been rejected. With that knowledge of the position that had been taken, we would be able to question the usual channels properly.
	That is my sole objective in the amendments. I support the reforms, which I hope will go through today, but we should look to their consequences for us as Back-Benchers. We put in a lot of time in this House for the sake of those odd moments of influence on things that we really care about. We ought to find a way of making sure that, when we really want to do something, we have the chance to participate if at all possible. I beg to move.

Viscount Bledisloe: I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will shortly be told that his amendment is not within the scope of this debate because it is not within the remit of the Procedure Committee to decide how members are chosen for committees. However, before he is rightly told that, perhaps I may say that I strongly agree with the general sentiments expressed in his Amendment No. 3, although not necessarily with the procedure for dealing with it expressed in the more detailed Amendment No. 4.
	I believe that the time has come when we should look again at how people are chosen for the various committees. Too often one finds that it is a case of Buggins' turn or a case of, "Oh well, there should be so many members from this party, that party and the other". Incidentally, in relation to the latter, the Cross-Benchers are grossly under-counted, but I leave that small point to one side.
	Many committees do not have much politics in them, and, as the noble Lord said, we should do much better if we looked for people who had real knowledge and a real interest in the topic rather than saying, "We must find two Tories, two Labour members, one Cross-Bencher and one Lib-Dem". I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will say to us that he will take away that matter and consider how it should be dealt with.
	The Procedure Committee is a very good example of a body that is badly composed and grossly insufficient in terms of Back-Bench members. First, it is far too big; and, secondly, it is grossly over-stuffed with party apparatchiks. Why the Procedure Committee needs to have the Leader of the House, the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Whip, the Deputy Leader—all from the government party—and, let us say, an almost equal number of Front-Benchers from the other parties beggars description. If it were slimmed down, first, it would be a better body and, secondly, Back-Benchers would receive better representation.
	While I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment can possibly be added to the Procedure Committee's report, I hope that we shall hear from the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that he will take away the matter and see how it can be investigated.

Lord Peston: I rise to say a word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I take it that he tabled these amendments not with a view to dividing the Committee but with a view to obtaining a statement on the matter. I believe that he is right to do so.
	The interests of Back-Benchers in this House must be protected. Very simply, we require my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Leaders of the Opposition parties to rise in a few moments to say that, when it comes to membership of committees, they are determined to see that the interests of Back-Benchers are protected. At least, I hope that that is what we are about to hear.
	I want to build on that point by making two or three other remarks. One partly follows the earlier intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on the subject of human resources. I am glad that he included we Back-Benchers in the set of people called "humans". The problem is that the approach that we appear to be following will undoubtedly involve more work for us. He is right to draw that to our attention.
	It is not often recognised—I say this in a slightly irritated way—that noble Lords sometimes sit on committees because they are prestigious. However, they do not seem to realise that a commitment is involved; namely, if one sits on a committee, one is supposed to attend. One is not doing the House a favour by agreeing to be on a committee. If a Peer is on a committee, he has a duty to be there. Noble Lords who know which committee I chair may guess what my sub-text is here.
	However, in relation to all these matters, including pre-legislative scrutiny and so on, I believe that if a Peer says that he wants to sit on a committee and if he is added to the list proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that must mean that he wants to do it and that he will attend and take part as and when required and not when it suits him for the odd hour when he can find the time. Therefore, there are two sides to this matter.
	Incidentally, I cannot see that the usual channels will keep we trouble-makers off the Committee stage of Bills. It they were to do so, we should simply spend far more time making trouble at Report stage. Therefore, I do not believe that my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will be tempted to go down that route—in fact, quite the contrary. The correct strategy will be to get the trouble-makers on to a Committee as early as possible and see whether they talk themselves out.
	I turn to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Although it was raised earlier, I believe that we can debate it under this heading—that is, the fear of the guillotine. When we first come to this House, we are often asked what it is like. Certainly when I first came I said, "The amazing thing when compared with academic life is how courteous everyone is in debate. The other thing is that they self-regulate and it works. There is no Speaker. They have a set of rules in the Companion, to which they largely stick to. In particular, when it comes to legislation, any Back-Bencher can put down an amendment and no one can stop him or her from insisting that it is debated". I considered all that to be marvellous.
	In terms of the Companion, I have noticed recently, not least with regard to the Education Bill over the past couple of weeks, that we are drifting away from our standards. I believe that at some stage someone will have to remind Peers what the Companion says about how often one may speak and what one is supposed to do. However, that is incidental.
	My main point is that I cannot see that I would ever vote for a guillotine and I know of no friends—I do not mean only political friends but friends in this House—who would do so. Therefore, unless something very strange happened to the composition of this House—again, I cannot see that happening in my lifetime—there is not the slightest possibility that a guillotine would be carried. Therefore, I hope that we can scotch that idea during this afternoon's deliberations, if not now.
	I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is right to raise the matter as it provides an opportunity for some of us to say what we think. But I do not believe that the danger of the guillotine looms before us in any way whatever. If it does—to make my usual joke—I hope that someone will then tell the Government Chief Whip what trick he has to pull off to obtain a guillotine because he at least might be tempted. But I cannot think of any way that one could carry off a guillotine. I do not believe that it would be possible to get a respectable vote for a guillotine and not embarrass those proposing it. Therefore, I believe that the one aspect that we can set aside—I am using the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as my basis for intervening—is the danger of a guillotine.

Lord Denham: I spoke at length last time this matter was before your Lordships, and I can assure the Committee that I shall make only this one very brief intervention this afternoon. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House knows that I have severe reservations as to how his package, even as amended by the Procedure Committee, might reflect on the traditional freedoms of your Lordships' House. The imposing of the ten o'clock limit, for example, could conceivably lead to a guillotine of some sort unless more time were made available.
	When the noble and learned Lord comes to reply, having heard what noble Lords have said, I wonder whether he will make certain, by giving an absolute undertaking to the Committee, that nothing in this whole package will ever be used by Her Majesty's Government to create even a semblance of a guillotine on the Floor of this House or in any of its Committees. If he did that, I, for one, would feel very much happier.

The Earl of Erroll: I return briefly to the subject of the amendment. I, speaking particularly as a Cross-Bencher, support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I consider it to be a very good thing. I have noticed the possible danger of rotating expertise off a committee because the membership is due for rotation. I believe that we should be seeking expertise. With regard to the subject of guillotines, if we are all brief, we shall not need one.

Lord Biffen: I want to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, concerning the guillotine. In my time, I have guillotined a number of Bills. I have wiped my bloodied hands on my apron afterwards and have never felt much contrition. I suspect that when the proposals now before us are argued through and experienced, we should be very wise not to forswear the possible use at some stage of a more orderly use of time—I use the bromide prescription. I shall tell Members of the Committee why.
	It is very modish to say that we are in favour of the pre-legislative consideration of Bills. That is not an entirely new prospect. It was tried in the 1980s in the other place. It was not a great success but nor was it a howling failure. However, what is now being proposed is the consideration of Bills—not only the odd Bill but all government Bills to all intents and purposes—not merely by the chosen Members of this House but by their acolytes, their research assistants and all those wishing to give evidence. Do noble Lords suppose that one can easily anticipate the amount of time that that will take? Do they suppose that the Members who are not privileged players in this drama will quietly accept the subsequent consideration of the Bill in its more conventional sense and will show a suitable reticence appropriate to their status? Not a bit of it. They will try to get in on the act by considering the Bill at its post-pre-legislative stage, and that will be a natural political process.
	Those hard-nosed factors have persuaded the management down the road to be very reticent about the idea of pre-legislative scrutiny. I am delighted that that has been breached and that this matter is now to be tried seriously and pioneered in this Chamber. However, in addition to the consequential demand on financial and other resources mentioned by others in the debate, the exercise will, above all, create a great deal of demand in terms of time. That is why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, with his virginal innocence, would never dream of making heroic statements about guillotines. But it is all being done on a very generous expectation. I am reminded of the old adage about the menu with no prices—that after the feast, you may end up doing the reckoning by doing the washing in the kitchen.

Lord Barnett: The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, had a majority, but my apparatchik noble friend the Chief Whip is not in such a happy situation. As I understand it, he has about 28 per cent of your Lordships' House. Getting a guillotine with that percentage seems a little unlikely. Even the Official Opposition certainly do not have a majority of your Lordships' House. So the idea of guillotines is not really a serious proposition.
	I speak briefly to agree with this amendment. It is a very sensible amendment, but it is not necessary—I thought I saw my noble and learned friend nod—because one cannot impose it on your Lordships' House. I do not like the idea of the so-called usual channels deciding the membership of Select Committees. I believe that the membership of Select Committees, which in my experience do a first-class job, should be made up of those who are likely to do a good job on them, and not necessarily in the kind of proportion to which the noble Lord referred. I hope that we can get away from that.
	I hope that this report and the previous report on your Lordships' House will ensure that the usual channels do not have the kind of power that they have previously had and still have now. We are told that the Selection Committee decides on the membership of Select Committees. We all know that, in that sense, a Selection Committee is a joke. The selection committee does not decide; the apparatchiks, the usual channels, decide. It is time that we in your Lordships' House decided the membership of them, which will require us to appoint the members of the selection committee as well, and for that we do not need new resolutions or to amend the procedure. The usual channels should not make the decision.
	It is a very complicated matter, about which the other place experienced even greater difficulties, and the usual channels were generally reluctant to relinquish those powers. I know that my noble and learned friend will not be reluctant to relinquish the powers, and I look forward to hearing him tell us that.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: I should like briefly to support the amendment. I share the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that the noble and learned Lord who is to reply will exercise a Welsh sense of temperance and be prepared to accept our arguments.
	I should also like to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Biffen. I, too, had a period as a slaughterer-in-chief as Leader of the other place, although my term in that office came to a premature conclusion. Alongside my temporary addiction to that, I set my much greater enthusiastic commitment to the idea of pre-legislative scrutiny. It has been available for a long time, though it has hardly ever been used in the other place. I agree that we need to be cautious in applying it to everything, and I embrace it for one other final reason; namely, that the problem arises from our sheer legislative lust as a modern society. The size and number of Bills of every kind now being introduced is formidable. They go far beyond the bounds of manageability and intelligibility. If pre-legislative scrutiny can curtail that lust, I welcome it.
	I still believe—this relates to a subsequent debate that we are to have—that we would be unwise to curtail our sitting hours quite to the extent proposed by these recommendations. A degree of flexibility will be necessary to achieve the outcome that we all want. On this amendment, I am very strongly in favour of our trying to fight in this House the battle that has been carried some way towards success in the other place.

Lord Carter: Perhaps I may say a few words on behalf of the usual channels, retired. I do not know what the other parties do. As Chief Whip, I asked all my colleagues on the Whip to let me know whether they were prepared to serve on committees and, if so, on which committees they would like to serve, and I know that my successor will do the same. So far as I could, I tried to put them on to the committees that they chose. In that way, they all served on a committee, though not always on the committee of their choice.
	I have just glanced at the membership of the specialist committees of this House, which shows that we have expertise on those committees. I shall not go through the detail. The present system works quite well. All we need do is tidy it up a little to make it perhaps a shade more formal. I would be tempted not to go down the very bureaucratic route in Amendment No. 4, but to seek an exchange of views between the parties in order to get the balance of expertise that we want. If one looks at the membership of all the specialist committees now, one finds that the usual channels have not done a bad job.

Lord Trefgarne: I agree with the thrust of my noble friend's two amendments and with his Motion, which we are to consider later.
	As has been explained, the selection of noble Lords to serve on Select Committees rests with the Committee for Selection. I have the privilege of being a member of that committee. However, I have to tell your Lordships—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will not mind my saying it—that the selection of names for consideration by the Committee for Selection is sometimes a little perfunctory.
	On an early occasion soon after my election to that committee, my first knowledge of a recommendation from that committee of which I was a member was on seeing the Motion on the Order Paper in your Lordships' House. It transpired that apparently a very urgent decision was required from that committee, and that decision was whizzed through. It is true that someone attempted to write to me, seeking my agreement, but the letter was not received and the matter therefore came on to the Order Paper. That will not do. The Committee for Selection must have before it a proper list of names from which it can make a selection. At the moment, it merely rubber stamps the recommendations of the usual channels. I hope that that arrangement can be improved.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: There is at least one Select Committee in your Lordships' House that does not really reflect your Lordships' views and, furthermore, clearly does not reflect opinion in the country at large. I refer, I regret to say, to the very important matter of our relationship with the European Union.
	I must declare an interest in this, because I served on that committee from 1992 until 1996 and have been trying to get back on it ever since. Simply because that experience led me to the conclusion that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, I have never been allowed back. It is worrying, however, that not a single member of that committee holds that view.
	As to opinion in your Lordships' House, we have very little to go on. We very seldom talk about European matters beyond the currency. It is true that in the record vote in your Lordships' House in 1992, one-third of your Lordships voted to support a Motion to give the British public a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. At the end of January 1997, in a record vote for a Friday in the House, your Lordships voted to support the Second Reading of a Bill which would have taken us out of the European Union altogether.
	As to opinion in the country, which goes completely unrepresented on the committee, we do not have much to go on. However, in consistent opinion polls, in answer to the question, "How would you vote in a referendum to stay in or leave the European Union?", the come-out vote has not fallen below 40 per cent since 1987 and during the recent general election it reached 52 per cent. I repeat that no one on your Lordships' Select Committee would support that view—at least publicly.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, says that he always did his best in that regard. But I have to remind him that a deputation went to him some two years ago, including Members from his own Back Benches, these Benches and the Cross Benches, and nothing happened.

Lord Carter: Lord Shore of Stepney was appointed to that committee after the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, visited me.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In that case I take back my comment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, must admit that as, regrettably, Lord Shore is no longer with us the lacuna remains. I merely put the example to your Lordships and hope that in future Back Bench opinion will be better represented.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: There are times when one longs for the guillotine. But I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Denham, that there is no prospect or intention of using any of the changes to introduce anything like a guillotine measure in this House. First, I do not believe that the House would vote for the idea. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Barnett said, it is not possible for this Government to operate it as we have only 28 per cent of the vote. Furthermore, I do not believe that it would chime with the way in which we do our work—which we all know is perfect in every respect. I give that reassurance in the terms required by the noble Lord.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made me the most attractive offer, which I carefully wrote down. He proposed that if amendments similar to those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were passed, I would no longer have to sit on the Procedure Committee. That is the best inducement I have ever been offered.
	I am sympathetic to the thrust of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others. It is important that we do not have the appearance of a cosy stitch-up. I am happy to take the matter away, as the noble Lord invited me to, in order to see whether we can do better. For instance, the procedure mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carter was working. I know because I was party to it and he frequently said that on occasions he had insufficient volunteers to fill committee places. I see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, nodding. That is sometimes true. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is a member of the European Union Committee and I do not believe that his views differ enormously from those of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
	My noble friend Lord Peston made the point that becoming a member of a committee requires a commitment and that must be so. Local authorities and the Bar Council, for instance, have a rule that if members do not turn up for six months, or a particular number of meetings, they are automatically excluded. That is a thought put forward almost at random.
	I undertake to consider the matter. I would caution against a register as it would become too formalised and bureaucratic and many noble Lords would not want to be as unfortunate as to put their names on a register. Your Lordships write in asking to be on committees. I received a letter from a colleague the other day in respect of a particular committee and I passed it to the Chief Whip at once.
	I take on board the points that have been made; we need to be transparent and to be able to reassure all sections of the House that their interests are fully safeguarded. As has been said, there is a requirement for Back-Benchers to sit on the Committee of Selection. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was well made; that if one has a Committee of Selection, that simply stereotypes the pre-decision that has already been made. That is unsatisfactory and is a matter for the scruple of those who sit on the Committee of Selection. And of course ultimately the Back-Benchers have the majority in this House.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, invited me to be as subtle as possible. When he used the word "apparatchik", I thought that he was using two words: that it must be some elderly Welshman living in Port Talbot whose name was App Aratchik.

Lord Lucas: I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said. I am happy to take his advice and seek to pursue the matter through discussions. The key is information. I never know what committees exist, what is proposed and when vacancies arise. Some way of making that information available would be helpful. It would also be helpful to know how my interests should be registered if I am to get on to such committees. If that could be formalised so that I knew how to do it, that would be helpful. However, within that, I am happy to wait and see what ways might suit best the ordinary working of the House.
	Having said that, I now turn to a moment of flattery. My noble friend Lord Geddes raised the question of paragraph 12. The answers which the noble and learned Lord gave to the Statement were an admirable example of how to be concise and informative at the same time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Lord Brougham and Vaux: I must advise the Committee that if Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

Lord Trefgarne: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 4, line 7, leave out "We recommend that the House should now take this endorsement a stage further and agree to Group recommendation (b)," and insert "We reject Group recommendation (b) and recommend that no changes be made to the present practice on carry-over."

Lord Trefgarne: In moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. I believe that the question of carry-over is one of the most important issues which the Procedure Committee considered following the deliberations of the Leader's Group. I recognise at once that there are differing and respectable points of view on the matter. I know that others do not agree with me. I am sorry about that but my view is as follows and I hope that I can persuade some of your Lordships to the same view.
	For centuries—at least for generations—it has been the position that any Bill brought before Parliament must be enacted during the course of that Session or else fall. As recently as the previous Session or the one before that, the position was breached with a particular Public Bill which it was decided should be agreed could be carried over.
	That may not be quite correct, because that facility has been available to Private Bills for long time. But for a long time Public Bills have carried a restriction that they must be enacted during the Session in which they are introduced. I suppose that that is why, generally, Bills start their passage in another place and then come to your Lordships' House. If they have not passed through all stages in both Houses by the end of the Session, they fall.
	I believe that that has always been an important constraint on governments. It is important for governments to be able to persuade Parliament of the merits of their legislation within a reasonable period and one Session has been taken to be that period. That is the basis upon which Back-Benchers are able to contest Public Bills if they disagree with them. They can table amendments; they can argue the merits of different parts of the Bill; and they can insist that the Bill is subjected to proper intervals between stages, as has long been the case in your Lordships' House and the other place.
	If we are now to breach that principle fundamentally—and I believe that these proposals do so—that is a retrograde step. I have no doubt whatever that the need to get Bills through a particular Session is an important constraint upon governments and Ministers. It is a way in which Parliament can keep Ministers to account. They have to explain and justify the merits of their legislation within the required period. If that means that they have to stay up late at night, or that they have to delay having their dinner or going to bed, I am sorry about that, but that is the way it has been and the way it should be.
	I recognise that a couple of years ago we agreed that a particular Bill could be carried over. That was a departure from the principle to which I have referred, but it would be a great mistake to widen the arrangements for the carry-over of Bills, as I proposed by the Leader's Group and endorsed by the Procedure Committee in its report before the House. I know that other noble Lords want to express views similar and no doubt dissimilar to mine, but in the mean time I beg to move.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before turning to the question of carry-over, I want to say a word or two about pre-legislative scrutiny, which is dealt with in this group of amendments. Many noble Lords have already spoken on the subject.
	The real problem is that we have too much legislation. If we did not have so much legislation we should manage perfectly well—as we have done in the past—without pre-legislative scrutiny. I have many misgivings about it and I have a nasty suspicion. It is all right if we decide to have pre-legislative scrutiny. We shall start with pre-legislative scrutiny and then have the other stages of the Bills—just as we have always had. But I have a nasty feeling that one day someone will have the bright idea that because we have pre-legislative scrutiny it is not necessary to have both a Committee and a Report stage.
	We shall end up with one stage less in which the whole House takes part in the scrutiny of a Bill. That stage will be replaced by pre-legislative scrutiny. It will be done by a Select Committee and will not be open to all Members of the House. That is something that I do not like.
	I have misgivings also because when the Scotland Bill was passing through the House, some noble Lords were concerned that the Parliament would not have a second chamber. We were told that that would not matter because there would be pre-legislative scrutiny and that the Executive would take account of that scrutiny. I think that they did for quite a while, but when the pre-legislative scrutiny committee recommended something that they did not like, the Executive paid not a blind bit of attention to it. If that has happened once, it could happen again. If it can happen there, it could happen here. That is why I am just a little worried about this issue.
	I turn to carry-over. I do not like carry-over for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. To my mind it is an attempt to neutralise—and I would almost say sterilise—the opposition. As such, it is nothing more nor less than an affront to democracy. I also cannot help wondering whether any implications of carry-over on the Parliament Act have been carefully looked at.

Lord Dean of Harptree: I rise to support Amendment No. 5 moved by my noble friend, standing also in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and to which I have added my name.
	It is true that the Procedure Committee has suggested certain safeguards, notably that the carry-over procedure should apply only to Bills that have had pre-legislative scrutiny. I do not believe that that safeguard would survive the rough and tumble of parliamentary life. It would quickly be extended and probably moved entirely. Once carry-over were extended we should be on a dangerous and slippery slope. That would be bad for Parliament. It would also be bad for the government of the day because a government needs a strong Parliament.
	How far would this safeguard operate? What would happen in the first Session of a Parliament, particularly when we have a new government? Do we really expect that a new government, fresh from the electorate, would sit on their hands for the whole of the first Session while they put their Bills to pre-legislative scrutiny? Of course not; they would be anxious to carry out their mandate. They would say that they had already had pre-legislative scrutiny by the electorate who elected them. I suggest that it would be difficult for the opposition of the day to withstand that argument.
	A normal Session of Parliament is four years. Do we really expect that for a quarter of that period—namely, the first Session—there would be no effective legislation because there had been no pre-legislative scrutiny? Of course not; it would not work in that way in the real world.
	Also, what about emergency Bills? Most Sessions these days have emergency legislation. Almost by the nature of things emergency Bills are not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. But the Government of the day will say, "This is an emergency Bill. It should go through irrespective of the safeguards built in". Often, as we have discovered already in this Parliament, governments have the tendency to tack on to emergency Bills provisions which are not emergencies at all. Therefore, I suggest that the proposed safeguards are unlikely to stand the test of parliamentary time.
	We should not abandon the principle which is hallowed by time, namely that if a government cannot persuade both Houses of Parliament by the end of the Session to agree a Bill, that Bill falls. It is a good discipline on the Government of the day. It may help them to resist the temptation to introduce more legislation than they can comfortably carry. Once we remove that discipline, the chances are that we shall get more and probably worse Bills. What we really need is fewer and better Bills.
	Furthermore, it deprives the Opposition of one of its most powerful weapons. Often the Opposition can only talk. It has many voices and a long time to try to persuade the Government that their policy is wrong and should be amended. Once the opposition of the day is deprived of that weapon, it weakens the whole process of parliamentary procedure.
	In conclusion, all noble Lords want to improve the working practices of this House. Many of the recommendations by the Leader's Group are welcome. But there is strong opposition from Back-Benchers on all sides of the House—which has been evident from the debates so far—to some of the recommendations. I hope therefore that with a little more time it will be possible to proceed by consensus.
	I hope that the Procedure Committee report will not be agreed to today, but that more time will be given, so that there can be more adequate consultation with Back-Benchers on all sides of the House who are unhappy about some of the proposals. I believe that with more time and consultation, and given good will on all sides, it should be possible to reach a consensus.

The Earl of Erroll: I approve of carry-over. I think that it will prevent the kind of thing that I have seen sometimes at the end of a Session when the two Front Benches have had to collude in order to get defective legislation through. They want to get it on to the statute books. To restart the whole thing in the next Session would not be time effective.
	We should have protections. First, the Parliament Act protection is essential; and, secondly, Amendment No. 8 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is a valuable additional protection. We should look at that.
	As to the remainder, I have a nasty feeling that some people are trying to filibuster. I think that is pointless. I shall at be least brief.

Lord Carter: Perhaps I may attempt to deal with what might happen in the trial period of two Sessions; and with the legitimate concerns of the Opposition about the effect of carry-over on the number of Bills which might go through.
	The first point to remember is that the carry-over procedure has been available to both Houses for three or four Sessions. Only one has been presented—the Financial Services and Markets Bill, now an Act. One takes a view on whether or not that was a success as a carry-over. I believe that in the two Sessions in which we may conduct this experiment the number of Bills available for carry-over will be quite small.
	On resources to be made available to deal with pre-legislative scrutiny and so on, the first requirement is to get the departments to produce the draft Bills. That is more difficult than noble Lords realise. They have to be Bills which will be subject to the proper pre-legislative scrutiny laid down in the report. They must be suitable for carry-over: they will not have a time restraint on them. Some Bills have to be dealt with in a certain time for legal and other reasons of policy. They also have to be at the right time of the Session. A Bill would not be carried over which had started in the House just after the Queen's Speech; it would be one which started towards the summer or even in the carry-over period. If one puts all those facts together, the number of Bills available for carry-over in the experimental period will be quite small. We shall have a good chance to see how that works and whether we wish to extend the measure.
	Noble Lords have referred to the effects of carry-over on the programme and the fact that the Government will have more Bills dealt with as a result of carry-over. My own view is that the Government will not get more Bills through. Indeed, they may even get fewer through. Noble Lords have to think in terms of a Parliament and not a Session. As a former Chief Whip, I think of Parliament as a pipeline of Bills. Let us suppose that it was a common procedure in each Session to carry over a number of Bills—that will not happen for some years. Bills would be carried over from the first to the second Session. They would crowd out some Bills which would then be carried over from the second to the third Session, and from the third to the fourth Session. The fourth Session would probably be the pre-election Session and would be short. I think, frankly, that in the fourth Session the Opposition will be in a strong position. The noble Lord, MacGregor, with his experience, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, nod. Over the four or even the five Session Parliament, I think that the carry-over will not result in the Government obtaining more Bills. If they are lucky they may obtain the number that they want. They could well find that they obtain fewer. Throughout a Parliament, the Opposition will not have less power with the use of carry-over but perhaps even more than they now have.

Lord Jopling: I wonder whether at this stage another retired usual channel can add some comments. We have not sufficiently discussed two parts of the overall package. Although I realise that the debate is about carry-over, it is inextricably linked to the business of pre-legislative scrutiny.
	I say immediately that during the years I was involved in such matters in another place, as the Government Chief Whip, I was strongly opposed to pre-legislative scrutiny. In my time we had virtually none. I opposed it for the simple reason that I believed that it would prolong the time that each individual Bill took in the House of Commons. I speak from my experience in the House of Commons but I think that it is also applicable to this House.
	I opposed it on the assumption that the Government would not cheat in the way that they arranged pre-legislative scrutiny. I take the point ad absurdum. It would be very easy for the Government of the day to get a Motion such as we are discussing through the House and then to say, "You will have one Session of three hours for the pre-legislative scrutiny". That will be very much in the hands of government. I always opposed pre-legislative scrutiny because I imagined that it would take several weeks to take place. But it all hangs on how pre-legislative scrutiny will be arranged.
	When the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House responds, it will be crucial for him to tell us in some detail whether scrutiny will be artificially curtailed or will continue for a number of weeks. That is crucial to the package we are discussing.
	On carry-over, noble Lords have spoken about the great weapon of time, the Opposition's only real weapon. My noble friend Lord Dean referred to that. But the Opposition's great weapon of time is largely effective only if one can use the time to run the Government's legislative programme up against some buffers. One can talk for ever if one wishes, but various buffers always cause the Government of the day to ask, "Shouldn't we try to put a stop to this? Shouldn't we try to get a deal?" There is the buffer of the late hour of the night. That is not very effective. Governments are usually prepared to continue throughout the night if necessary. They hate to do so but if it has to be done it has to be done. That is one form of buffer.
	Another form of buffer is often a forthcoming Recess—whether it is Christmas, Easter or whenever. Oppositions exploit that buffer by using their weapon of time. But by far the biggest buffer is that of the end of the Session. If, as Government Chief Whip, I had ever had the opportunity of carrying over Bills, whether or not they had had pre-legislative scrutiny, I would have given my back teeth to do so. If we agree in this House for a carry-over of government Bills which have had pre-legislative scrutiny, it is one of the biggest gifts we can give to the government business managers. In time it will lead further and further towards doing away with the early Sessions. If the measure is agreed, as one set of legislation rolls into the next Session, the Government will be more and more inclined to ask, "Why do we have Sessions?" That does not mean that I do not have any brief for the State Opening of Parliament but I know that some of my colleagues do.
	We must understand that we are being invited to give the Government a massive lead over the Opposition. My much admired and sadly deceased friend, the late Lord Cocks—he was the Government Chief Whip and then Opposition Chief Whip in another place—always used to talk to me about the importance of maintaining the balance between opposition and government. If we allow carry-over to occur, we shall seriously destroy the existing, correct balance between government and opposition. I am strongly opposed to allowing any carry-over.

Viscount Bledisloe: Inevitably, there is a conflict here between the concept of pre-legislative scrutiny—which, provided it is done properly, is highly desirable—and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that the only power of opposition is the threat of time. The answer to that lies in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, which, for some reason, is not in this group, but to which we shall come.
	Surely, the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is a House of Commons speech. All that the procedure allows is for the House to agree a Motion for carry-over where there has been pre-legislative scrutiny. If there has been phoney pre-legislative scrutiny, such as that to which the noble Lord referred of three token hours, or if it is thought to be a government manoeuvre, as the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, frequently and rightly point out to us, the answer is simple: the House should not agree to the Motion.
	Although the solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is much better, I do not see what is the great danger posed by the proposal at present. We will not be pre-legislatively scrutinising—if there is such an appalling phrase—many Bills. If the Government try to cheat, we simply do not agree to the carry-over Motion.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should have agreed to the amendments, had it not been for Amendment No. 8, in the names of my noble friends Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Elton. I support Amendment No. 8. Therefore I cannot support these amendments. Amendment No. 8 would provide the balance to which my noble friend Lord Jopling referred and impose an effective discipline. So I hope that my noble friends will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
	Like my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree, I find many of the report's proposals acceptable. Paragraphs 17 and 20 are indeed welcome. I entirely agree with my noble friend that we should not be asked to divide today; we should have more time for consideration. Indeed, if we are asked to divide on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, in view of the debates that have ensued and shall ensue, we should be doing an injustice to the interests of the House. I am not so concerned about injustice to any particular noble Lord, but that would be an injustice to the House. Whichever way a forced Division—take the lot or leave it—were to turn out, it would not be understood, it would not be in the interests of the House and it would send a wrong signal.

Lord Elton: On a practical point, the proposal is that we should have two Sessions of an experiment and review it at the end. When he comes to reply, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will tell us what will happen to Bills that are candidates for carry-over at the end of the second Session. A Bill that has been reviewed pre-legislatively—I do not know what is the composite word; the Germans would have one—in the first Session is likely to be held over to the second, so the second part of the process falls into the experimental period. But what will the Government Chief Whip do about Bills that he would like to be candidates for carry-over into the third Session, when it is not known what the House will decide about the validity of the experiment itself?
	I leave the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord the Chief Whip to consider that, and turn briefly to carry-over. I feel strongly that the function of Parliament is to control the Executive. A principal means of doing so is that described by my noble friend Lord Jopling. This is the place at which the system pinches; this is the sluice gate that controls the volume of legislation. I have been a Minister in several departments and was struck from the first by the enthusiastic rivalry between departments to have more Bills on the main programme than their rivals. Ministers were tempted to think that their machismo was judged by the amount of parliamentary time that they could secure.
	So there is great pressure to put Bills before your Lordships and a need for a counter-balance to that. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, the former Chief Whip, suggested that, however many Sessions there may be in a Parliament, they in fact form a continuous process and that the question is whether we get a blockage here, there or at the end. He temptingly suggested to us that it would be more profitable to us if the blockage were at the end.
	I pause at that point and ask the noble Lord to stop thinking about us and to start thinking about oppositions. We will not be here for ever; it is just possible that noble Lords opposite will not be there for ever. One day, whoever is in government, they may be in opposition.
	I thought that the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees was supposed to be impartial. He should have forgotten his origins and not be gesturing.

Lord Tordoff: I was only pointing out that there is another option, which is that perhaps one day my former colleagues could form a government.

Lord Elton: I do not want to venture quite as far as that as a hypothesis.
	This is a serious matter. We are discussing the functioning of this House, not individual blocs of people who happen to be in it now. The functioning of the House depends on a proper balance between the Government and Opposition of the day and the Cross-Benches. In that light, we should consider proposals to restrict the volume of legislation.
	My noble friend Lord Jopling was extremely persuasive, but I also took careful note of what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, when he pointed out that, in the end, the decision whether there will be carry-over will be a decision of this House. I should add in parenthesis that the candidates for carry-over will be numerous. The nearest thing to pre-legislative scrutiny in which I have been involved was in 1983, when I was at the Home Office and in charge of a Bill about the police—a large and important main programme Bill. The 1983 election struck in the middle of Report. I went home blithely for the holidays—for the weeks of the election—thinking that when I returned, my task would be easy because most of the work had been done. Not at all, more amendments were tabled when we returned to the Bill than when we first considered it.
	So pre-legislative scrutiny may make for better legislation, but it will not make for quicker legislation. I shall wait to hear the winding-up speeches, but Members will have observed that my name is attached to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. If this amendment fails, I shall speak with vigour and conviction in favour of that amendment.

Lord Peston: The intervention by my noble friend Lord Carter was devastating. I hoped that one of the noble Lords opposite would tell us why my noble friend was not completely right.
	Unless an infinite amount of time and space is available, a government who choose to carry over a Bill must pay a price. They must give up time and space in which to do it. I was particularly amazed by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. It made no sense. If he carried over a Bill, he would lose another Bill, and he would have to explain to one of his ministerial colleagues that his Bill had been lost because they carried the other one over. He might lose a few friends.
	My noble friend's intervention should have saved our having to proceed further with this amendment and the later amendments. He won the argument with no trouble. It is about time we allayed such fears and got on to the matter that really interests me—can we go home early?

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My noble friend Lord Bledisloe and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that the decision on whether there should be carry-over would depend on the will of the House. At line 15 of page 4 the report says:
	"Carry-over would be achieved, after discussion in the usual channels, by a motion agreed by one or both Houses, depending on where the bill had been introduced".
	Judging by those words, it does not seem that it would necessarily follow that this House could defeat a carry-over.

Lord Roper: I am in the rather unusual position of being a former member of the usual channels in another place, like the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, having been a Chief Whip at that end. I am now a member of the usual channels here.
	I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. It represented the situation in the House of Commons where governments have majorities and oppositions have time. That is not the case here. We are—or we should be—concerned about using time effectively to carry out scrutiny of the Government. We tried to do that in the proposals that the Leader's group and the Procedure Committee have put before the House.
	Pre-legislative scrutiny is important. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, will read the recommendation of the Procedure Committee at line 23 of page 3 of the report. It says that the committee supports pre-legislative scrutiny,
	"provided that the quality of pre-legislative scrutiny is maintained at a high level and also that pre-legislative scrutiny committees are not required to work to unreasonably tight timetables or to consider draft bills that are incomplete".
	We made it absolutely clear that we did not want just one session of three hours but proper pre-legislative scrutiny.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said that he always resisted pre-legislative scrutiny in the other place because it took up time. The inevitable price we had to pay was not that there would be automatic carry-over of every Bill that had been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny but that the House should be more prepared to consider for carry-over a Bill that had been subject to such scrutiny and thus had taken more time, if the scrutiny had been carried out in this House.
	We have come up with a proposal that is in the interests of the whole House and, in particular, would enable us to achieve something that was recently strongly recommended to me by the previous first parliamentary counsel. He told me that he had tried for years to get governments of both parties to accept the idea of pre-legislative scrutiny because he believed that it would lead to better legislation. We have a chance to achieve that; I hope that we will take it.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I hesitate to intervene in the debate, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to me, I shall do so briefly. I also hesitate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Jopling, particularly as we normally agree on issues. My experience as Leader of the House in another place was different from his. I must also explain why I am speaking about the amendment. I support Amendment No. 8, but, if this amendment were carried, we would not reach Amendment No. 8.
	A major problem for us is that, outside Parliament, there is enormous criticism of the way in which both Houses scrutinise legislation. I share that view. I feel strongly that there is great inadequacy in the other place. The proposals—it is only a trial—go some way to meeting those criticisms. The difference between theory and reality is huge. In reality, many Bills are hardly scrutinised at all in the other place and rarely scrutinised here. Often, they are badly drafted in the first place. Pre-legislative scrutiny will not apply to all Bills. Indeed, I hope that it will apply only to a few. However, I can think of cases—the Financial Services and Markets Bill is an example—in which pre-legislative scrutiny would have led to our having a better Bill in the first place. If we have proper pre-legislative scrutiny—not done in a short time—it is difficult to get a Bill through in a Session.

Lord Carter: The Financial Services and Markets Bill received substantial pre-legislative scrutiny. It was sent to a Joint Committee of both Houses, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and was discussed in draft. It received an enormous amount of pre-legislative scrutiny, and we then discussed the proposed amendments to it, which were more numerous than for any Bill for a century.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: That does not destroy my point; it might have been worse if the Bill had not had pre-legislative scrutiny. It was a complex Bill, and it was important that we had both stages.
	If we have pre-legislative scrutiny for selected Bills, it will be difficult to get such Bills through in a Session. That is my first point. My second point is that the end-of-Session approach will mean that some changes will be made—governments always have to make concessions towards the end of a Session—but many amendments will go through without proper scrutiny by either House. That criticism is rightly made by objective observers outside the House.
	If a government have a large majority, they can do what they like towards the tail end of a Session. There may be some exceptions to the rule, but, in general, a government can do as they like. This proposal—Amendment No. 8, in particular—would help to allay outside criticism that we do not do our job of considering legislation properly.
	It is likely that, in practice, such scrutiny will be a constraint on governments. If governments carry over a large number of Bills, they will not be able to carry out a substantial programme in the second Session. If I am wrong about that, the trial will show that. I realise that only a small number of Bills will be chosen for the trial, but I hope that the trial will demonstrate that we perform our function of scrutinising legislation better. That is why I support Amendment No. 8.

Lord Strathclyde: Carry-over is the most important issue in the Procedure Committee's report. I have never been attracted to the principle of carry-over, mainly because I believe that the individual Sessions of Parliament provide a discipline on the parliamentary process and on governments and oppositions to provide for the Queen's business by a certain point. However, I recognise that the Government have an ambition to see more carry-over.
	In the Leader's group, we tied the question of carry-over to the provision of pre-legislative scrutiny, which seems to be generally popular, not just in Parliament but with outside groups directly involved in or affected by particular legislation. It gives such groups an occasion to try to get things changed prior to final publication of the Bill and gives Ministers the opportunity to change their mind. I am happy, therefore, to accept the experiment.
	I must take up a point about pre-legislative scrutiny made by the noble Lord, Lord Roper. The experiment will fail if we end up with a situation in which Members of another place do all the pre-legislative scrutiny and this House gets all the carry-over. I urge the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to say that that is not what he has in mind. If it is, he will find that the usual channels will be used, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, and Bills that the Government had thought would be carried over will not be. If the noble and learned Lord can give that assurance, we should embark on the experiment.
	My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth is to introduce an amendment relating to his plans for carry-over. I must say to him that, in the first instance, the approach that I suggest is a better way forward and is more likely to work in tune with another place. My noble friend's proposals may be right for Parliament as a whole, but that is not the proposition before us now.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot add anything useful to what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord MacGregor, offered. Therefore, in deference to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I do not seek to do so.
	However, I shall answer the specific question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. It is not my intention to have the pre-legislative scrutiny all, or mostly, undertaken by the House of Commons, with this Chamber receiving all, or most, of the carry-over. As the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, said, this will not work unless the Government behave scrupulously. This Chamber has the overall lock, which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, identified.
	I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor. Legislation is often poorly produced and rushed in too quickly. Thereafter, unintended consequences emerge at far too late a stage; and, generally, Parliament does not do the work properly. We do it a lot better than the Commons. By way of illustration, I cast my mind back to the proceedings on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill just to remind myself of what happened. I had a schedule drawn up in which two devastating letters appeared alongside relevant clauses—namely, ND (never discussed). We spent much time focusing on clauses that had never been discussed in the other place.
	I believe that this proposal is a genuine attempt to improve the legislative programme. The answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is that the House would, of course decide.

Lord Elton: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could also answer the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, about the meaning of the reference to, "one or both Houses" in paragraph 7 of the report. Under what circumstances would the agreement be by one House, and under what circumstances would both Houses be involved? Can the noble and learned Lord say which House it would be in the former instance?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Each House would decide as to whether it was satisfied that the pre-legislative scrutiny had been of sufficient quality to justify carry-over.

Lord Elton: I should point out that the recommendation is that one House, or both—

Viscount Bledisloe: I should tell the noble Lord that the House that can carry over a Bill is the House that has possession of the Bill at the end of the Session. I imagine that the House of Commons could now change its procedure and carry over Bills, and we could not object. The Bills that will be carried over by this Chamber are those that are lodged in this place at the end of the Session, and in respect of which we would pass a carry-over Motion. If, whatever we say about this, the House of Commons decides to carry over its Bills in future and then restart them in the next Session, say, three-quarters of the way through, we would have no objection; indeed, no power to object.

Lord Elton: I am so sorry; but, in that case, what is the meaning of the requirement for both Houses to agree?

Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend Lord Elton puts his finger on an important point, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
	I am afraid that I am unconvinced by the arguments that have been advanced. It seems to me that what we are asked to accept is the panacea of legislative scrutiny, possibly backed up by the usual channels. I believe it to be wrong for this basic and, in my view, crucial principle to be overridden by those considerations. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 177.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 4, line 10, after "above." insert-"Our endorsement of Group recommendation (b) is also subject to the proviso that the Procedure Committee has made, and the House agreed to, recommendations for procedures to apply in pre-legislative scrutiny committees that will ensure:- that there is time available for appropriate, thorough and methodical consideration of the draft bill
	- that draft secondary legislation is available to members of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee at that stage or, if that is not practical, not later than the formal second reading stage of the bill- that the circumstances under which the House of Commons will undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft bill on behalf of the House of Lords are understood and explained fully."

Lord Lucas: One of the principal effects of this amendment, if passed, would be to delay our procedures considerably, so I shall not press it. It has been tabled purely as a probing device because I believe that we should make clear to the Government what it is that we expect by way of pre-legislative scrutiny and procedures if we are to grant carry-over.
	As my noble friend Lord Jopling pointed out, it is necessary that time is made available for the thorough and methodical consideration of a Bill. I have been involved in one pre-legislative committee, that set up for the Freedom of Information Bill. We were given a month, but that proved not to be nearly enough time. Although the time-scale will always be compressed, we must make it clear to the Government that when they approach us with a bid for pre-legislative scrutiny we expect longer than one month. We ought to set a guideline. To that end, I suggest that a period of three months is approximately what the Government should expect us to spend on the pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill of any degree of complexity. People from outside become involved; they must gather their thoughts and produce evidence. We must then consider it and bring forward rational amendments.
	In this process we also need to deal with the status of secondary legislation. One of the problems of taking Bills through this House is how infrequently we are able to consider draft secondary legislation until we reach Report stage, at which point holding a reasonable conversation becomes difficult, if not impossible. One of the functions of the pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill ought to be that the department concerned has an opportunity to produce in draft form secondary legislation in sufficient time to be ready for the ordinary processes of the House. That should be made clear to the Government when they submit a Bill for the advantages of pre-legislative scrutiny.
	It is clear from the procedures before us that the Government anticipate that occasions will arise when pre-legislative scrutiny is undertaken by the House of Commons alone, and that we are required to give the concessions. I should very much like to understand the circumstances under which that would take place. When would the House of Commons alone indulge in pre-legislative scrutiny? How would this House make known its agreement to that decision? How would this House be involved in the decision reached on taking the Bill through that process rather than through a Joint Committee or separate committees, as was done with the Freedom of Information Bill?
	Finally, perhaps I may return to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and others on the previous amendment; namely, relating to page 4, line 15. I should like to be told what the sentence beginning with the word "Carry-over" would mean in practice. I beg to move.

Lord Norton of Louth: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 8 which has been grouped with Amendment No. 7. We have already held a discussion on the principle of carry-over; my amendment seeks to impose a discipline.
	In relation to the proposals before the Committee, I think that we should decouple the recommendations with regard to pre-legislative scrutiny and carry-over; they should stand on their individual merits. Pre-legislative scrutiny is extremely important and I am a strong supporter of it, but much will depend on how it is done and equally, if not more important, what notice the Government take of such scrutiny. I do not believe that there should be an automatic link as proposed in the report of the group on the working practices of the House.
	The case for carry-over should be seen on its own merits. I support the principle of carry-over and have done so for a number of years, but not in the form endorsed by the Procedure Committee. I support it, but with a defined cut-off point. Under the proposals before us, the time available to take a Bill through the House will vary depending on the stage at which it is carried over. That could, I believe, be to the benefit of government and not of the House.
	In the past, the Procedure Committee of the other place has defended the existing sessional cut-off on the grounds that it constituted "a useful discipline". I have been persuaded of and accept the case for a measure of discipline, having previously taken a more relaxed view of the time that should be accorded to Bills. We have a tighter discipline in the United Kingdom than is the case in many other parliaments, but the existing discipline is not helpful to Parliament.
	Bills are introduced early in a Session and go into Committee at roughly the same time, putting a strain on the Members and resources of the other place. Then they arrive in your Lordships' House, creating a heavy burden just before the Summer Recess and during the spill-over period. The process places an unnecessary burden on both Houses and militates against effective scrutiny.
	Getting rid of the sessional cut-off would allow Bills to be introduced at different points during a Session and thus allow parliamentary resources to be marshalled more effectively. Imposing a specific cut-off point—say, as proposed in my amendment, 12 months after introduction—would maintain the discipline of the present arrangements. Indeed, it would impose a tighter discipline given that the length of a Session is far from fixed. Sessions can, and sometimes do, last for more than 12 months.
	The case for a fixed cut-off point has been recognised in the other place as well as in this House. I cite the words of a Member of the other place in support of a fixed cut-off point:
	"The Commons would have much more opportunity to carry out scrutiny of legislation if Bills were carried over from one Session to the next. Plainly there must be a time limit on the period within which any Bill must complete all stages, and the quid pro quo for greater flexibility on the carry-over between Sessions should be a requirement that all Bills must complete all stages within a fixed period of months".
	Those are the words of the Leader of the House of Commons, Robin Cook, in his memorandum to the Modernisation Committee in the other place in December last year. He suggested elsewhere that the cut-off point should perhaps be 12 months.
	The Conservative Party's Commission to Strengthen Parliament, which I chaired, suggested 14 months, primarily in order to allow time for Special Standing Committees to be appointed. I am content to opt for 12 rather than 14 months, and I have therefore put 12 months in the amendment.
	For the reasons I have given I support carry-over. It will benefit Parliament—but it must be subject to a specific cut-off point. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to discipline. My amendment puts that discipline into words and fixes it. I commend the amendment to the House.

The Earl of Erroll: As regards Amendment No. 7, I strongly support the thrust of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. If we knew what was going to be in secondary legislation it would stop a lot of the suspicion voiced in debates at earlier stages and could shorten them considerably. Noble Lords wonder what will happen and often ask for clarification of what is in the Minister's mind. The amendment would be very productive.
	I strongly support Amendment No. 8 because it sets a sensible timetable. At the moment, when a Bill is introduced to the House, the amount of scrutiny we can give to it is dependent on whether we have one year or three months. That is illogical. Having one year whenever a Bill is introduced is sensible.
	In the interests of brevity, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said that he agreed with everything the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, which was that carry-over is determined by a vote in this House if the Bill is to be carried over in this House. I should hate to see the House having to go back to Ministers and repeating everything with which they agree.

Baroness Lockwood: Amendment No. 8 seems to be redundant because there is a timetable. The original recommendation, which has been accepted, is that if a Bill is carried over into a second Session and is not passed in that Session, that is it, the Bill has had it. So there is a timetable. It may be just over 12 months, it may be two years, but there is a timetable. The amount of time allowed will depend on where the Bill comes in the first Session.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: In response to the noble Baroness, the amendment will impose the discipline to which I referred on the previous amendment under the extant regime. That will be an improvement in the general parliamentary process. That is why I have supported this amendment and rejected the previous one, although I abstained.

Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend Lord Lucas explained that his was a probing amendment. I, too, would like a clearer enunciation of the benefits of legislative scrutiny. We have decided that that will be the way we pre-qualify Bills for consideration for carry over, which, in the minds of your Lordships, is clearly one advantage.
	Four other alleged advantages were described in the Leader's Group report. Having read them, I am not very much the wiser. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to enlarge upon those four alleged advantages.
	I very much support Amendment No. 8, which stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Norton and Lord Elton. It is an improvement on the proposals contained in the Procedure Committee's report. Naturally I would have preferred the amendment that I proposed to the Committee a few moments ago, to which it disagreed. I strongly support, in substitution, the amendment proposed by my noble friends. I hope that the Committee will also agree to it.

Viscount Bledisloe: I am not sure that the Committee fully understands the full import of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. As I understand it, it is not only applicable to Bills which are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny but suggests that all Bills should have a fixed 12 months in which to pass or to fall whether or not they have been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. It is a very much wider idea.
	I do not believe we can possibly agree it today because it will need agreement with the House of Commons, but I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will take the idea away and set up a Joint Committee with the Commons to discuss it. In my view, it has enormous advantages. It provides all the discipline that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, rightly said we needed, and it also spreads the workload. It would mean that this House could work fairly evenly throughout the year instead of spending the first three months in idle debate and the final three months in hectic ping-pong. That is not only tedious and tiresome but it brings politics very much into disrepute.
	If every Bill had 12 months and no more to live, that would be very much better and would provide much more discipline. After all, if the Government wanted to get a Bill through they could extend Sessions. It would mean that our business could be very much more programmed. One would know that a Session would end on a certain date and the programme could be fixed. The amendment has enormous advantages. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will say that he will put in hand steps to consider it.
	I entirely agree with the sentiments behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, some of which are in the report of the Procedure Committee. It states in paragraph 6:
	"We support group recommendation (a)"—
	which is for pre-legislative scrutiny—
	"provided that the quality of pre-legislative scrutiny is maintained at a high level and also that pre-legislative scrutiny committees are not required to work to unreasonably tight timetables or to consider draft Bills that are incomplete".
	I very much hope that we will stick to that principle and refuse carry-over for any Bill which does not comply with it. The horror story told by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill he is considering—of a half-baked Bill, half of which is missing; of witnesses kept waiting—is a disgrace to those who sat on the committee, to the witnesses who were kept waiting and to the parliamentary process. If that kind of thing happens, I hope that we will not give a Bill carry over because it would bring the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure into contempt. Properly done it should produce better Bills and enable witnesses to feel that they had had time to express their views.
	It would be much easier if the Government could be persuaded to change a Bill before it was printed, rather than their standard response of the Minister at the Dispatch Box being told to defend it come what may because that is what the parliamentary draftsman has put there. It would be a great improvement on that kind of situation.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Perhaps I may speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. Members of the Committee have talked about discipline and balance, and his amendment seems to introduce both those qualities. It proposes a fixed period of a rolling 12 months, as opposed to an artificial date set only by the ending of the parliamentary year.
	I also want to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas, and in particular in support of his request that draft secondary legislation should be available to members of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. I had the opportunity to take part in the Committee stage of the State Pension Credit Bill. It was a complex, technical Bill, not necessarily highly party-political except in its incidence. Absolutely central to the Bill, forming the guts of the Bill, was the secondary legislation—the regulations that would be drawn up to give effect to its provisions. To be honest, most of those pieces of legislation were not available either until very late on during the passage of the Bill through this House, or indeed they were not available at all. Such pieces of legislation might well be suitable for pre-legislative scrutiny. If pre-legislative scrutiny is to have any effect at all, my noble friend's requirement that secondary legislation be available is essential.

Lord Carter: I am intrigued by the amendment. As I understand the proposal, this would apply to all Bills, whether or not they were eligible for carry-over. Is that correct? The amendment states that any Bill that has not received Royal Assent at more or less the same time—12 months after its introduction—shall be deemed to have fallen. I should be interested—

Lord Elton: I have before me the anticipatory agreement of my noble friend in whose name the amendment stands. It states:
	"We recommend that government Bills should be eligible for carry-over but subject to the provision".
	It applies only to Bills that are eligible for carry-over. This is not a great new principle. We are narrowing down the issue before the Committee, not opening up a new proposal.

Lord Carter: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, nodded when the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, asked whether it would apply to all Bills.

Lord Norton of Louth: My understanding of what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was saying was that the proposal was not confined solely to those Bills that received pre-legislative scrutiny. That was my point. I was merely aggregating the two things. I was referring to Bills that were subject to carry-over, which would be a much broader category than simply those that were subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.

Lord Sheldon: I am very concerned about the parliamentary year. It is a most distorted one. At the very beginning, we have a large number of Second Reading speeches and virtually no Committee stages. The committee rooms are empty. At the end of it, we have very few Second Reading debates, but the Committee stages continue through the night and so on. This is clearly a nonsense. There is a very strong argument now for having this 12 month period. I should like a 12 month period from the date of the Second Reading speeches to the final Third Reading stage and the passage of the Bill—within that 12 months, whenever it may be. In that way, we could have a more ordered year. That would be more convenient in terms of the quality of the legislation and it would be for the convenience of both Houses.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as I understand it—I shall be corrected by my noble friends if I am wrong—the proposal relates to the extant regime. All it is doing is providing a discipline under the extant regime. It is not related to whether there has been pre-legislative scrutiny.

Lord Carter: Would it apply to Bills that are carried over or to those that are eligible for carry-over?

Lord Norton of Louth: It would apply to Bills that are carried over.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have not so far taken part in this debate, but I should like to add my voice to those urging the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to examine this idea again. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has made a very strong case. I have been impressed by the way in which it has attracted support on all sides of the Committee. I instance the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, who has addressed the problem and found the attractions of this case.
	There was no logic in connecting the question of pre-legislative scrutiny to the issue of carry-over other than simply saying that this provided an extra trip-wire; namely, that there could be no carry-over if there had been no pre-legislative scrutiny. With the greatest respect to the Procedure Committee, that is illogical.
	What one is looking for is an opportunity to spread the parliamentary year in a more balanced way while leaving the discipline of a time limit, imposed on both Houses and on the Government, which nevertheless would allow a Bill to be introduced in the middle or towards the end of a Session which would not automatically fall if it had not been passed by the end of the Session. That seems an extraordinarily sensible proposal. It is an improvement on what is in the Procedure Committee's report. I urge the noble and learned Lord not to dismiss this idea out of hand.

Viscount Bledisloe: Perhaps I may defend the Procedure Committee and explain one point. The committee did not consider the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and decide on this one instead. The committee had decided on what is in the report, and the report of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, came before it only at a stage when it was too late to consider it. There is no question of the Procedure Committee having rejected the proposal and having made a mistake. The idea of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is a new one, and—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—a better one.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may add to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I raised the question of the Norton report at the final meeting of the Procedure Committee. Unfortunately, I was told that I was out of order for considering the noble Lord's report because he had not submitted an amendment for the Procedure Committee to consider. It was said to me physically across the table in the committee that, if only the noble Lord had presented an amendment, it could have been considered. As I recorded at the time, I had enormous sympathy with the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and I hope that the Committee will consider it.

Lord Trefgarne: I endorse what my noble friend Lady Blatch has said. When the report of my noble friend Lord Norton came to the Procedure Committee there was, frankly, ample time for us to have considered his suggestions. Unfortunately, the chairman advised us that we could not consider the proposals because my noble friend's report contained no amendments to the draft report. As my noble friend had not had sight of the draft report—indeed, nor had many others, even members of the committee—that was not possible. Thus it was that my noble friend's suggestions were not considered by the Procedure Committee. I consider that to be most regrettable and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, the chairman of the committee, so decided.

Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may give some slight explanation. I received the treatise, as it might be described, from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, at a very late stage: the Procedure Committee was not exactly well under way, but I believe that it was the last piece of evidence that we received. It was several pages long and contained a number of proposals, all of which were extremely interesting. But procedurally it was impossible to use, because none of the items related directly to the working group report that we were considering. That was the difficulty with which we were faced. Had someone, or the noble Lord himself, tabled an amendment—

Lord Elton: To what?

Lord Tordoff: To the paper that was in front of the Procedure Committee. This was the only way in which we could proceed.

Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to intervene again, but the simple fact is that not only was this matter raised by my noble friend Lady Blatch, but she actually put a Motion to the committee on which we proceeded to vote. The report states:
	"It was moved by the Baroness Blatch, in paragraph 6, to incorporate into the report the points made on carry-over by L. Norton of Louth in his memorandum to the Committee".
	That was rejected in a vote. To say that the opportunity was not given or that the matter was not discussed is simply not true. It is on the record.

Lord Elton: I should be grateful if we could get away from holding a post-mortem on the procedure, which is not what we are here to discuss, and return to the amendment to which I have the honour to have affixed my name—and which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has made so much more attractive to me since I did so, by showing me that it is more widely applicable than I had first understood.
	With one exception, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made a speech with which I could find no fault—one that I should like, with his permission, to adopt as my own, thereby shortening proceedings. I should, of course, say that our debates at the beginning of Session are not idle debates, as he suggested. I trust that the ping-pong he anticipates will not be the ineffective ping-pong that he said it would be.
	As to what we are about to do, the noble Viscount said that the proposal could not possibly be accepted today because it requires acceptance by the other place. Surely, in that case, the same goes for every proposal in the report. I therefore do not think that that objection stands.
	The amendment is an advance on the current situation and much more disciplined than what is proposed in the report. I warmly support my noble friend Lord Norton. I encourage noble Lords on all sides to follow him into the Lobby.

Lord Carter: I have just been able to work out the point that I wished to make earlier. The amendment refers to the Bill being introduced "into Parliament"; that is, into the first House. Let us consider a Bill—let us call it the Animal Health Bill—that is introduced into the first House in, let us say, July. It is then carried over. It finishes its course in the other place, for example, and then comes to us, perhaps early in the following year. Will there then be a temptation for the Opposition to table an amendment that the Bill should not proceed into Committee until certain conditions have been met? If those conditions, whatever they might be, are not met, the Bill would not go into Committee. It would therefore not receive Royal Assent by July, and would fall. The Government in this House will always be in a minority. Does not this proposal on a 12-month rule produce a new device for the Opposition by which it can delay the progress of a Bill?

Lord Elton: Such a device is already available for use in Bills coming through the current buffers, as my noble friend Lord Norton calls them. It has never been used before. It is scarcely an argument to say that it might be used in future.

Lord Carter: We have not used the procedure being used on the Animal Health Bill since the 19th century.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, particularly asked me a question. I appreciate that it relates to the previous amendment, but, in courtesy, I think that I should say what I understand the position to be. I shall be as brief as I can. It derives from the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
	If a Bill is introduced into the Commons and is still in the Commons at the end of the Session, the decision on carry-over is for that House alone. That is situation one, and it occurred in relation to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. When that Bill came to this House, we did not inquire, rightly, whether it was carried over. To carry over a Bill which has already reached the second House requires two Motions: one in the first House, to take the Bill through all its stages pro forma in the following Session; and another in the second House, to take the Bill, when received in the following Session, pro forma all the way to the point it reached in the first. That is the answer. It is a good deal more intricate than I had originally understood.
	There are, I think, one or two things I need to mention to your Lordships. I would hope, if we can go forward, to take the indications from your Lordships, to deal as closely with the Commons authorities as I can—because their procedures differ. Equally, however, we can move forward on reform generally only if we move forward together.
	I take entirely the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am undertaking that reasonable time and resources will be made available for pre-legislative scrutiny in this House. It will not—I repeat my assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—be the Commons doing most of the pre-legislative scrutiny and our doing most of the carry-over. I do not think that we need anything incorporated into statute. I have given those undertakings quite freely and voluntarily. If I do not abide by them, the House has an immediate and obvious sanction which I am sure it would readily adopt.
	On Amendment No. 8, I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, are right. Indeed, I thought that I saw the noble Lord, Lord Norton, nodding. The amendment states:
	"We recommend that government bills should be eligible for carry-over"—
	not government Bills that have received carry-over; but—
	"government bills should be eligible for carry-over but subject to the provision that any bill that has not received Royal Assent twelve months after it has been introduced . . . shall be deemed to have fallen".
	So I think that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord are right. If the noble Lord, Lord Norton, was indeed nodding, I think he was right to nod—not Homerically but actually.
	In any event, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, with a great deal of sympathy. I am quite happy to see whether we can work through alternatives. I think that it would have to be in consultation with the Commons. The reason that I think that 12 months is in a sense too arbitrary is derived from the precise example given by the noble Lord. He thought that 14 months might be more appropriate in some circumstances. I am perfectly happy to take this away and consider it with the Lord President at the other end of the building and see whether we can reach some accommodation.
	The other thing that I should say is that we have to be careful that we can go forward harmoniously with the Commons. A certain amount of concern has been expressed to me about the proposal in relation to what we might do about scrutiny of the Finance Bill. One of the concerns is that we might envisage proposing amendments to the Finance Bill at the very time that the Bill was having detailed consideration in Committee in the Commons. The other serious concern that has been expressed to me—I think that I have to share it with the House—is the possibility of damaging the balance between the respective roles of the two Houses relating to financial business, which predate the Parliament Acts by a good 200 years. Whatever one thinks about the validity of these concerns, I am obliged to recognise them. I am certainly obliged to retail them to this House.
	I am eager to proceed by agreement. I am happy to give an undertaking that I will try that dialogue. I am happy to refer the financial scrutiny matter to the Joint Committee. It is well within its remit. There is a danger that the future of the sub-committee's effective existence would fail if we did not get an agreement from the joint Lords/Commons committee.
	I think that I have dealt with all the questions that have been raised on this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, thinks that I have been helpful.

Lord Strathclyde: I am not entirely certain what the noble and learned Lord meant in his final comments about the sub-committee on the Finance Bill in paragraph 13 of the working practices group. This is an important part of the overall package of change; namely, that the Finance Bill should be treated under a new and different procedure which would allow for far more effective scrutiny by this House, using the expertise that we have readily available. I hope that what the noble and learned Lord meant was that, whatever happens next year, we will be setting up this sub-committee of the Economic Affairs Committee to deal with the next Finance Bill, and we do not need to wait for any recommendation that may or may not come from the Joint Committee on Lords Reform—which, of course, is dealing with an entirely different matter. I wonder if the noble and learned Lord can confirm that.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: No; the noble Lord is quite right in his understanding of what I said, which may not accord with what he wishes. However, I cannot pretend to the House that I have not had the strongest possible representations. If we do not achieve a co-operative outcome, the effective future of the sub-committee of the Economic Affairs Committee will be seriously imperilled. I would prefer, if I can, to take forward the proposal of the working party and the Procedure Committee to see what accommodation may be arrived at. I think that one way of usefully doing that is through the Joint Committee. It is well within its remit, because it deals with powers as well as composition. I am obliged to tell your Lordships these things because I have been told them quite plainly.

Lord Roper: On the particular point which the Lord Privy Seal has just raised, we have heard what he has said. I think that some of us were aware that this is a sensitive issue because of the Commons privileges in these matters. Clearly, we can go forward only through co-operation. I hope, however, that it will be possible to find ways to do that without having recourse to the Joint Committee. That should be our last resort. That can be done but if we can a way of moving forward without having to do that, it would be much better.

Lord Elton: Will the noble and learned Lord elaborate on the attractive remarks that he made about taking further the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth? We have to accept that these matters must be conducted in amity with the other place and that unnecessary conflict is not desirable. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how, if agreement is secured, that will be done and whether we can expect a further Motion on the Order Paper in the next six, eight or 10 months proposing how the matter should be taken forward, or will it simply be a matter of smoke signals?

Lord Strathclyde: Paragraph 9 of the report sets out the procedure for the new finance sub-committee. Am I to understand that even if the House approves that, it will not happen? In which case should not the noble and learned Lord have brought forward an amendment? If the House approves the report, I should expect the Economic Affairs Committee to set up a sub-committee when the next Finance Bill is published, as that is what we are approving. I join the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in emphasising what is written in the report; namely, that there is no intention whatsoever to challenge Commons financial privilege. That is not the purpose of the sub-committee. Its purpose is to help the Treasury and to help the scrutiny of legislation and to improve it, which is what the whole report is about.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I accept that and I have no intention of moving an amendment to a report to which I have put my signature. I am simply telling the Committee as candidly as I can of the difficulties that have arisen and of the way that I hope to navigate through them. I repeat that I am certain in my own mind that if we can get some form of agreement with the Joint Committee, that will give the sub-committee's effective existence much more of a fair wind.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I believe that the Commons Modernisation Committee sat today. I have been engaged here throughout the day and I do not know what conclusions it reached. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Leader of the House of Commons has raised some questions about the 12-month cut-off. I do not know the result of those discussions. I shall find out and I shall see whether I can get any accommodation. If I can, I shall in the first instance write to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and place a copy of the letter in the Library. If the noble Lord, Lord Elton, then proposed a way forward, that would be a matter on which the House should take a view. However, I suggest that the amendment does not achieve what it seeks to achieve and is unduly restrictive and rigid.

Lord Lucas: I know that I should conclude my remarks on the amendment but that would mean that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, would not have a chance to conclude his remarks on his amendment.

Noble Lords: Withdraw the amendment!

Lord Lucas: I am not going to withdraw it; I am going to talk.

Lord Tordoff: It may assist the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, if I point out that his amendment was put to the Committee. That is the amendment that we have been discussing. When he stood up originally he said that he did not intend to move the amendment, but having made a long speech there is no alternative other than to put the amendment before the Committee so that it can be discussed. We have been discussing Amendment No. 7. If the noble Lord cares to withdraw it, we can move on to Amendment No. 8.

Lord Lucas: But we have been discussing Amendment No. 8 at the same time. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, wants to respond to that discussion in the usual way, he should do so before I withdraw my amendment and we move on to Amendment No. 9.
	However, if the Committee wishes me to proceed, I shall. I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said. It is clear that we shall have to feel our way through this matter. I hope that he feels that some markers have been put down with regard to what we shall find acceptable; namely, that we shall require a reasonable amount of time; we shall want Bills which are not skeleton Bills but allow us to discuss the substance of what is proposed; and, finally, that the circumstances under which the scrutiny is undertaken by the Commons alone are fully explained and agreeable to this House.
	I realise that this is a matter that the noble and learned Lord will have to evolve in conjunction with his colleagues in another place. I hope that they do not feel that we shall in any way be a pushover on this matter. We shall not fail to become extremely upset if we feel that they are trying to put one over on us and make us do the carry-over when they have had the benefit of the pre-legislative scrutiny. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of line 15. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Norton of Louth: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 4 leave out paragraph 7 and insert-
	7 The Procedure Committee endorsed the principle of carry-over In 1998. We recommend that the House should take this endorsement further. However, we do not endorse Group recommendation (b). We recommend that government bills should be eligible for carry-over but subject to the provision that any bill that has not received Royal Assent twelve months after it has been Introduced into Parliament shall be deemed to have fallen. Carry-over would be achieved, after discussion in the usual channels, by a motion agreed by one or both Houses, depending on where the bill has been introduced. We believe that the case for carry-over stands on its merits and should not be tied necessarily to any other recommendation for change."

Lord Norton of Louth: I shall be brief. I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who spoke in the previous debate on the amendment. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for his constructive response which constitutes a good way of going forward. In the light of his indications of the way that he wishes to proceed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 6, line 14, leave out "The Procedure Committee endorses Group recommendation (g)(a) that the House should normally rise by 10 pm on Mondays to Wednesdays." and insert "The Procedure Committee rejects Group recommendation (g)(a) and recommends that the House should normally rise by 11 pm on Mondays to Wednesdays."

Lord Lucas: It is clearly becoming a practice of this House that if one has an amendment in a group which is not the lead amendment, one can make a speech to it when one reaches it in the Marshalled List. Perhaps we ought to formalise that as it is becoming very much the way that things are being done, rather than everything being consolidated.
	Amendment No. 10 has the simple effect of moving the closing time for business from ten o'clock to eleven o'clock. If I am here until ten o'clock—it appears that I shall be here until ten o'clock tonight—I may as well be here until eleven o'clock. I have nothing else to do with the extra hour except go home and read the newspaper. If we could devote an extra hour to business in this Chamber, there would be less pressure on the working day and on other days when we could usefully do other things. We would not find that the business expanded sideways into other days. We would be able to get more into the days which we have already voted to this House. In terms of my working day, an eleven o'clock finish works much better than a ten o'clock one. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I should like to degroup Amendment No. 15 which stands in my name and is grouped with this amendment as it concerns a different point. I should like to speak to it separately.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: We are discussing one of the major issues in the report. I admire the courage of the Procedure Committee and the working party in grasping a nettle I have held in my hand many times over the past few years. One needs only to be here regularly at ten o'clock to realise what a farce the proceedings of this Chamber degenerate into from time to time.
	Last week I was present in the Chamber at ten o'clock during proceedings on the Enterprise Bill. For a long time there were just seven people in the Chamber. That figure included the noble Lord on the Woolsack. The Enterprise Bill is an important Bill. However, on that occasion it was important only to the two or three people who wanted to move amendments and attend the discussions. The amendment is a sad reflection on its mover. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wishes to alter the proposed ten o'clock finishing time. My working day starts before ten o'clock in the morning. It is all very well for the noble Lord to tell us what is convenient for him. However, we must consider the impression that we give to those outside the Chamber with regard to the way in which we conduct our affairs.
	Of course, I have on occasion been present in a packed Chamber well after ten o'clock and well after midnight. That has occurred on half a dozen occasions in 19 years. Every two or three years a controversial issue arises. I refer to proceedings on House of Lords reform. I remember rising to speak at half past two in the morning and being proud to say that I was No. 183 out of a cast list of 192.
	Those events happen rarely, and I know the argument that will be put if in some way or another—not by guillotine, but by agreed convention—we seek to terminate our business at about ten o'clock: what will that do to the rest of the business and how will we do it? Discipline: that is how you do it; by forbearing what noble Lords think is their right, not just to stand up and speak, but to detain the House and the servants of the House and incur expense, in order that they can delete "5" and insert "6", or speak to a brief that has been given to them by an outside interest, as has often been given to me.
	If the Committee allows the amendment tonight, it will be sliding away from the self-imposed task of the Leader of the House—whom I commend and applaud for sticking to it—of grasping the mettle over the past two or three years and making the House face up to changing its image. That image is that when it pleases one or two individuals to keep the House going, whether the House likes it or not and whether the Opposition speakers like it or not, whoever it is is entitled to do it.
	I do not believe that they are entitled to do so, and if the amendment is pressed, I hope that it is defeated.

The Earl of Erroll: I agree with all the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Self-imposed discipline on speaking at great length is important, particularly late at night. I realise that many noble Lords are experts in various fields and have risen to great positions. They may want to speak after dinners or they may be invited to functions. It is important that your Lordships are out in the real world and do not live in an ivory tower in Parliament. So I disapprove of regular late-night parliamentary sittings. Noble Lords should be able to go out to dinner and meet real people.
	Having said that, I do not agree with the proposal. We should have flexibility so that on great occasions we can run on late if we need to.

Lord Marlesford: I do not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said about wasting of time. I have not been here very long; about 10 years, but that has not been my observation. This is an important subject and I support my noble friend.
	The one lesson we have learned, particularly in the past few years, is the huge importance of this House scrutinising legislation properly in a way that the other House does not. I am against the proposal for a ten o'clock rule on the grounds that it is unnecessary and undesirable. I have looked at the House of Lords' weekly statistics for the 45 weeks so far in this Session to the week ending 20th July, during which there have been 171 sitting days. On 72 of those days we have sat beyond ten o'clock; 42 per cent. It is difficult to take the analysis further because of Friday sittings, of which there have been 12, but in essence the figures show us that the average total time per day for the 171 days is 6 hours 52 minutes.
	If one assumes that by definition on the days on which we did not sit after ten o'clock we rose by ten o'clock, it means that on most of the days on which we sat after ten o'clock, we rose a relatively short time after ten o'clock; probably well within the eleven o'clock deadline.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is that on the assumption that a day starts at 2.30 p.m. and that in a working day noble Lords do nothing before 2.30 p.m. and that their working day starts at 2.30 p.m. and lasts for about six hours? That may be the case for some, but not many.

Lord Marlesford: I am sorry, but what the noble Lord said is totally irrelevant to the point I am making, which is about the business conducted by this House and the length of time the House sits in order to perform its functions. Of course, in that context I mean from 2.30 p.m. Monday to Wednesday, from 11 a.m. on Friday and from 3 p.m. on Thursday. It is important the House should be able to sit longer when necessary.
	I take a couple of examples; first, there will be occasions when Bills have long Second Reading debates. We know that when Motions are time-limited, the excellent system which the other place does not have is that the total time available is divided by the number of speakers, allowing extra time for the Front Benches, which can mean as little as five or even three minutes per speaker. That is fine for a general debate, but not for a Second Reading of an important Bill. It is an essential part of proper scrutiny of legislation that in a Second Reading debate noble Lords should be able to speak at the appropriate length on the points they wish to make.
	Secondly, I turn to Committee stage. I can see a time when, if a ten o'clock rule is in force, in practice there will not be full time for certain considerations. Negotiations made for a number of days in Committee will not prove adequate. I would hate to see this House having the same reason for not considering legislation properly as the other place gave us only a day or two ago, when its Members said that they did not have the opportunity.
	The one thing this House has that the one at the other end does not—often because the Government do not think it should—is the proper opportunity to discuss legislation. It is unnecessary to place a ten o'clock constraint for the reasons I have given. It is undesirable because in practice it will limit this Chamber's crucial function in debating legislation. I support my noble friend and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will see the strength of these points.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I understand the reasons for the Procedure Committee's recommendation and the reasons for the amendment. Both will be attractive to many noble Lords. But we have to be careful. At the present time it is possible for the House to be adjourned at ten or eleven o'clock, or at any other time, but perhaps having a guide will persuade noble Lords to get on with the business. But it is extremely difficult for us to do that when undigested legislation is sent here from another place.
	When a Bill such as the ratification of the Nice treaty is discussed for only three days by the House of Commons, of course this House wants to take a long time to discuss the important issues involved. When the House of Commons pushes through a Bill such as the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in three days; a Bill of 125 clauses and 13 schedules, of course it has to be discussed in this House almost ad nauseam. This House made some very relevant amendments which helped the Bill and helped the freedom of individuals in this country.
	There are many reasons why this House sits late, which lie not here, but along the corridor in another place. When we are talking about restricting the time in this House, we perhaps ought to discuss things with the House of Commons to try to ensure that they do the job they are elected to do: scrutinising legislation properly and holding the Government properly to account.
	Second Reading debates are not the only ones that might concern us. There are other great debates on great matters, such as hunting, on which many people wish to speak. It is essential that if the recommendation, or even the amendment, is carried, the Government are prepared to give additional days so that everyone who wishes to speak in these debates can be accommodated. That has been the position in this House, which we need to retain. In this place, anybody who wishes to make a contribution may do so.
	With those restrictions, the House may well wish to agree that usually we would like to get away by 10 o'clock, but there may be exceptions. Also, we expect legislation that arrives in this House to have been properly thought-out, properly prepared and properly discussed by the elected representatives who sit in the Chamber along the corridor.

Lord Trefgarne: I said earlier today how opposed I was to the idea of a guillotine. A number of your Lordships expressed support for that view and the noble and learned Lord said that he had no such intention. I of course accept that that is his position.
	However, those on the Government Front Bench will not always be there. Some day there will be other Ministers on the Government Front Bench and other people sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Maybe they will change over after the next election. I hope so.
	Be that as it may, nobody can bind Ministers for ever. I would like to ensure that there is the least possible temptation on Ministers or anyone else even to think about a guillotine. Making the closure arrangements more flexible will move in the right direction in that regard. For that reason, I support the amendment and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: One of the things that really wastes time in this House and stops us rising at a reasonable hour is Statements. There may be one or even two and sometimes they go on for well over 40 minutes and nearly to an hour. I respectfully suggest that we should be much more careful about taking Statements unless there is a shortage of business. My noble friend Lord Errol thinks that perhaps they should be taken in the dinner hour. If they must be taken, that would be a good idea.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I shall briefly support my noble friend Lord Lucas. I listened carefully, as I always do, to what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said about the image of this House. I am more concerned about the reality of the job that this House does than I am about the image. However, I do not think that it is a bad image. The image in the country seems to be that this House puts its back into the job of revising legislation that, all too frequently, has not been considered at all in the other place. That impression received some validation last night when at about 25 past one in the morning—or perhaps a wee bit before that—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who is sitting opposite me now, delivered a necessary and searching examination of a provision in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. There were not too many people in the Chamber at the time, but the debate was necessary.
	It does not matter whether the House is crammed at some late hour. What matters is what job the House is doing and whether it needs to be done. Because I see in the recommendations an inhibition on the ability of the House to do that, I support at least what my noble friend Lord Lucas proposes.
	The problem is that a recommendation to rise at 10 will become an expectation and then it will become something like a moral obligation. There are only a certain number of available days that can be used to make up the time that has been lost. In effect, we will run into something very like a timetable. That is my anxiety.

Lord Skelmersdale: I support the amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Errol, spoke a few minutes ago—or perhaps it was more than a few minutes—about the need for Members of your Lordships' House to go out and meet real people and get real experiences in the outside world. My codified way of putting that is that we are an amateur House in that we get our knowledge, and very often our incomes, from outside the world of politics. For that reason, I hate the idea of being asked to sit at 11 o'clock on Thursdays. If my noble friend's amendment were agreed to, we would save that time and not need to sit on Thursday mornings.

Lord Monson: I was away from the House for a couple of hours and accordingly missed the speech with which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, introduced the amendment. I apologise if any of my remarks have already been made by him.
	Of course in principle we would all like to rise by 10 p.m. Indeed, I think we would all much prefer to rise by 8.30 p.m. However, our workload must be got through one way or another. Unless noble Lords cut their speeches dramatically at all stages of Bills, which is a vain hope not least for the reasons advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, judging by precedent and according to figures kindly supplied by the Chairman of Committees, we are going to have to sit for an extra 17 days each year in order to get through the same amount of work. That may put a different complexion on things when noble Lords consider the options.
	If we were to rise by 11 o'clock, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggests, my calculation is that we would have to sit for only an extra eight days each year, which is manageable. Seventeen days certainly is not.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The recommendation from the Procedure Committee was generally approved in the consultation and the responses to the questionnaire. Ten o'clock is late enough to be doing very important work. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, about the importance of the work. Important work of scrutiny and revision is not best done by people who are exhausted.

Lord Lucas: In that case, I find the noble and learned Lord's rejection of my Motion earlier today puzzling. He said that the idea that this House should close its consideration of this business at 11 o'clock was to invite the whole notion of the guillotine into this House. Yet now the noble and learned Lord is saying that it is impossible to move beyond 10 o'clock in the ordinary way.
	It is clear that if we end our sittings at 10 as a matter of general course, we shall have to sit many more days. That may suit some people or it may not. It does not suit me and it seems a matter for your Lordships to decide which they prefer. Are we a House who would rather sit until 11 and have fewer days or would we rather sit until 10 and have more days?
	One of the difficulties of generally sitting until 10 p.m. is that the supper break comes between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m. Everyone returns rejuvenated and spends the next hour and a half making long speeches. It is only after 10 p.m. that one again gets down to the ordinary pace of business of the House. Therefore, in a way, that is a very inefficient cut-off time.

A Noble Lord: Speak for yourself!

Lord Lucas: I am speaking for myself. If we were to agree to a cut-off time of 10 p.m., then perhaps we should consider other changes, such as moving the dinner hour business to the last hour of the day's business. The few who wanted to stay late for a particular debate could be there from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. The business attended by people who were hungry for supper would be dealt with rather faster and more efficiently than it would by those who had just been fed.
	I have received much support on this matter but am anxious not to waste the time of the Committee. I should very much like to listen to the voices by hearing the Deputy Chairman call for a response. If there is much support for my amendment, I shall press it to a Division. If there is not, I hope we shall remain silent and the Deputy Chairman will declare otherwise.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 132.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Grocott: I beg to move that further consideration of the Procedure Committee report be now adjourned and that the House be resumed so that we can consider further the Education Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Education Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be considered forthwith.
	Moved, That the Commons amendments be considered forthwith.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland,)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS

[The page and line refer to HL Bill 51 (Rev) as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

12Leave out Clause 10.
	The Commons insisted on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 12 but proposed the following amendments to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement—
	12D Page 7, line 12, at end insert—
	"(6A) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (5) the governing body of a maintained school shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time (in relation to England) by the Secretary of State or (in relation to Wales) by the National Assembly for Wales.".
	12E Page 7, line 16, leave out from second "company" to end of line 17 and insert "registered under the Companies Act 1985 (c. 6) as a company limited by shares or a company limited by guarantee".

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12D and 12E to the words so restored to the Bill. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 13F to 13M.
	With the leave of the House, I begin by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, an extremely happy birthday today. Were we doing something different, it would have been my great pleasure to invite her for a glass of champagne. The night is young and, who knows, we may yet have that opportunity. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my heartfelt good wishes and those of the many who over the years have had the privilege of working with her in education.
	I shall give a short explanation of why we have brought back this issue to your Lordships. We have reflected on the lengthy and extensive debates that your Lordships have enjoyed on this subject and we have considered thoroughly the many points put forward. I can fairly say that we have addressed all the questions directed to us. Apart from the answers that my noble friend Lord McIntosh and I have given in debate, we have issued policy statements and corresponded with noble Lords on the issue.
	I believe that we are not talking about points of principle here. We all want our schools to be able to innovate, to work in new ways and to engage in partnerships. We believe that this proposal is consistent with other proposals in the Bill to allow schools to work together innovatively, to which the House has already agreed.
	The object of groups of schools forming companies is to provide opportunities for schools. We want to prepare our schools for the challenges and opportunities that they face. Allowing them to choose this option will provide exactly that—a simple opportunity that they may elect to take to help them as they face the challenge of raising standards even higher throughout our system.
	We have encountered some puzzlement as to why we should allow schools that power. I do not believe that any noble Lords need be puzzled about this proposal. There is no puzzle or mystery about company status. The formation of a company is simply a means of enabling schools to carry out activities by establishing a single legal identity. It is not an end in itself. It is a convenient way of carrying out activities. If schools want to exercise a more convenient way of carrying out activities, we should not stand in their way.
	I do not propose to repeat in detail the further advantages that company status brings. I spoke yesterday in your Lordships' House of the way in which it allows liability to be limited. I also explained that the company is a very well understood and trusted model. I reiterate the point that we are not debating an issue that would somehow allow schools to lose track of their main objectives—a point about which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is concerned. We are debating a proposal that will allow schools to exploit a simple, convenient vehicle to provide services or purchase goods, where they see fit.
	In a nutshell, the proposal would allow groups of schools to form companies to purchase services or facilities for their members or to provide services or facilities to other schools. It is about schools being allowed to flourish, not about restricting opportunity. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested yesterday, about handing over the duties and responsibilities of school governors to school companies. Nothing in these clauses affects the duties and responsibilities of a school governing body, set out in Clause 20, to conduct a maintained school. Nor does anything in these clauses subvert the duty of a governing body to conduct a maintained school with a view to promoting high standards of achievement at the school.
	I hope noble Lords will appreciate that throughout the Bill we are concerned with high standards of achievement. It may be that initially only a very few schools will take advantage of the power for groups of schools to form a company. I hope that they may lead the way for others, but at first we may see only a few schools trying it out. But it surely must be the Government's responsibility to look ahead and consider what in the future may be helpful to schools in their goals of reaching and maintaining high standards. That is what these powers propose.
	Yesterday, I gave an example of schools forming a company to provide language services. Let me give another example today of what a service delivery company might do. Suppose there are three primary schools with the capacity to offer excellent new technology support to other primary schools. They may want to get together to use their expertise in that area. They may develop packages of support that other schools can use. Those other schools could benefit from purchasing a package of support tailored to their needs within their local area, and the schools forming the company would benefit from being able to reinvest any surplus income in providing even better packages for local schools and for their own. That is yet another example of the way in which those kind of activities might develop.
	We want schools to work together. We except company activity to be led by educational institutions. In the context of the built-in safeguards that we have, we want to trust schools to make rational decisions that will benefit them and their fellow schools. I do not believe that participation in school companies would create a distraction from the core goal of educating children and helping all children to achieve the best they can. We believe that this proposal would help individual schools and by allowing schools to group together, freeing up resources and sharing purchasing as they do so give other schools the benefit of their expertise.
	I turn briefly to the amendments proposed today. It has become clear that there is some concern that schools could somehow get involved in setting up companies without knowing the precise details of the operations in which they would be involved. We therefore believe that it would assist schools to provide guidance on certain aspects of running school companies. The employment and involvement of teachers in school companies is a subject that has been raised many times in your Lordships' House. That is why I am introducing this amendment, which would enable the Secretary of State to support schools in that area.
	We realise that many schools that form companies will examine the same issues over teacher involvement, such as the balance between working for the school, the top priority, and perhaps working, if appropriate, for the company. The guidance will also give schools a greater understanding of the use of short-term secondments to the company. I am aware that noble Lords may be concerned about whether such guidance is necessary. But I am sure that noble Lords would not want to put schools in the position of being unclear on any aspect of staffing, and we have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said in that respect. If schools do not want to set up companies, this guidance would not trouble them.
	We bring back today amendments that place on the face of the Bill provisions for companies to be limited by shares or guarantee under the Companies Act 1985. Currently, the Bill states that regulations may provide for school companies to be limited by guarantee. When we decided to offer choice as to the type of limited company, we thought to deal with that in regulations. Following debate, much of it in your Lordships' House, we agreed to make matters clearer in primary legislation that schools will have the choice.
	Our amendments also place on the face of the Bill the requirement that only those specified in regulations may join companies. I explained to your Lordships' House yesterday that we wanted to ensure that we put in greater protection. We intend to state in regulations that people joining school companies may include governing bodies, local authorities, independent schools, private companies, further and higher education institutions and individuals not excluded by the regulations. We will not allow to join companies those who currently are not permitted to be school governors or to be teachers.
	One of the concerns I have heard expressed in debate is that we are in danger of letting schools get into trouble in setting up such activities. Through these amendments I want to go a step further to ensure that we are all absolutely clear that the supervising authority has a crucial role in the operation of these companies. These amendments will make it mandatory for the Government to regulate certain matters concerning the supervising authority; that is, that it must ensure three things: first, that regulations provide for a local education authority to be designated as a supervising authority; secondly, that they will specify who the supervising authority is; and thirdly, that they will spell out its duties. It will provide extra reassurance for these regulation-making provisions to be mandatory. We have made this change to meet the concern expressed both in your Lordships' House and in another place that companies need a secure framework in which to operate.
	The other provisions of Clause 11(5) for companies to provide information about their financial affairs to the supervising authority, for the supervising authority to give directions to a governing body and concerning the procedures for such a direction, remain, as they were, discretionary, although I can say that we would intend to make regulations on those matters.
	In making these amendments, we are providing further safeguards for those involved in companies. I believe that they clarify the position your Lordships have sought for those wishing to get involved in using this power while still ensuring that we are able to empower schools to explore new ways of working and assist in creating further forms of collaboration within the education system. This proposal, as I have said in your Lordships' House many times, is about leading change and exploiting new opportunities where schools see fit. I commend the amendments to your Lordships' House.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to Amendments Nos. 12D and 12E to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Baroness Blatch: moved, as an amendment to Amendments Nos. 12D and 12E, Amendment No. 12F:
	12Fleave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 12".

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her birthday wishes. I can think of better ways of spending a birthday. I also thank her for a tentative invitation to take a glass of champagne with her. I have taken a glass of champagne today and it would be unwise to take any more, but I deeply appreciate working with the noble Baroness and her kind wishes.
	I want to take this opportunity to say that yesterday in debate I named Don Foster as the person whom I quoted. That was wrong and I was not quick enough to sort the matter out with Hansard. I meant Phil Willis and I hope that that will be accepted as an apology both to Don Foster and to the Liberal Democrats.
	In our previous debate today, much was said about the image of this House. The other place left this Bill largely undiscussed. I believe that this House has acquitted itself brilliantly not only on this Bill but on many others. This Bill has been much improved by the assiduous way in which this House has worked and the other place is only now forced to consider more aspects of it because of pressures from this House.
	The noble Baroness addressed the issue of what we are being asked to agree to tonight, stating that forming companies is simply a matter of forming a single identity. If that is what the noble Baroness thinks, it is the most naive of thoughts. Forming a company is not simply forming a single identity.
	The Minister in another place, Mr Miliband, said today that he wants to give schools the same freedom—note the words "the same freedom"—as private individuals and private companies. Let me repeat what I said yesterday:
	"I know of no [private] company that has to seek the equivalent of local education authority approval to be set up in the first place. I know of no [private] company that has the equivalent of a local education authority as a supervisory body with powers of intervention. Similarly, I know of no [private] company that has the equivalent of a Secretary of State also with powers of intervention".—[Official Report, 23/7/02; col. 229.]
	I add to that statement that I know of no private company that requires permission to borrow. In addition to all those layers of interventionary powers, the companies, as free-standing companies under company law, would be subject to the full panoply of supervision and regulation under company law. Therefore, this is not about giving schools the same powers as private companies.
	Mr Miliband also said that the gainers would be pupils. I, and I believe the Liberal Democrats, say that that is not guaranteed. Nothing in the clauses provides that the pupils will be the primary beneficiaries.
	My honourable friend in another place, Mr Cash, using a quote from Alice in Wonderland, said that words mean what they want them to mean. I am afraid that at every stage of the Bill when debating the formation of companies, Ministers have said what they believe can be achieved by the clauses. However, they have not faced up to the realities and the Pandora's Box of possibilities, liabilities and culpabilities. None of those issues has been addressed by Ministers in either place.
	Ministers talked about schools sharing expertise. They already do so. They say that there will be safeguards but there are no comprehensive safeguards for our schools. The question was asked: can the company sell goods into the private sector? For the first time we saw the Minister in another place looking slightly wrong-footed when he tried to cope with the issue.
	My honourable friend in another place talked about grounds maintenance, about outward-bound courses and about selling such services to other bodies. The issue is not one simply of developing a CD or educational services but of selling others. Where in the Bill would a company be prevented trading with other bodies? There is nothing in the Bill which prevents that. School companies would be able to do so.
	It was said that schools can benefit from economies of scale. They do so now. For years, there have been corporate purchasing arrangements and co-operative arrangements between schools whereby they have benefited from economies of scale without having all the complexities of forming companies.
	The other issue that was not addressed—I shall not deal with it in detail—was the interaction between Clauses 2 and 20 and these clauses. Mr Miliband was at a complete loss to know what to say about that. Whenever government Ministers are giving examples—and more have been given today—they usually choose inoffensive, pro-educational examples. We have heard examples relating to developing curriculum materials and CDs. But other things are not outlawed by the Bill: for instance, the provision of school uniforms and equipment; grounds maintenance; catering; minor maintenance; and outward-bound services.
	As regards outward-bound services, Members scoffed at the possibility that there may be a libel claim or a law suit against the company providing such services which somehow go wrong. That was pooh-poohed as being fanciful. I am afraid that it is not fanciful. If a company sets up such services, it accepts all the liabilities that go with that.
	We have been told that borrowing would have to be approved by the LEA. No private company would have to go to a third party for that. It would be governed by the laws that govern private companies.
	Mention has been made of disreputable persons. School companies would provide a wonderful safe haven for a private company seeking to do business with school corporate bodies where, if it goes wrong, the tab is picked up by a local education authority—no risk. Where is the risk in that? It is risk-free because the LEA, according to Ministers in both Houses, picks up the tab if the company goes belly-up.
	It was said that we will give our schools the same freedom as private companies. Private sectors do not have that kind of third-party intervention. The honourable gentleman, Mr Phil Willis, in another place talked about individuals taking profit out of a company. It was said—and we should all like to believe, and I suspect in most cases it would happen—that profits would be re-invested back into education. But there is nothing in the Bill to stop the private sector partner taking profits away, and nothing that prescribes the use of profits, whether it is by the company set up by the schools or the school together with a private company. The interaction and the possibility of charitable status has not been properly answered. My honourable friend Mr Cash in another place referred to that.
	The governing body could not bring in wholesale teaching. That was said in our debate yesterday by the noble Baroness, and referred to again today in another place. The matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. We would probably concede the point that governing bodies go on governing, but there is nothing whatever in the Bill to stop a whole staff being replaced under the company arrangements. These are key concerns; they have not been answered.
	It is a perfectly reasonable proposal—the wish to give schools more commercial freedom—if only it can be made to work. This proposal would not. It spawns over-regulation. We heard again today of yet more regulation, yet more guidance, yet more for every school to worry about. As the noble Baroness and the Minister in another place have said, "Well, we do not expect many schools to partake of this". But, because potentially any school could partake, every single school in the land will receive all this bumf. We tried yesterday to limit the bumf. The Government said they were with us in spirit. The Bill does not support that.
	I turn to accountancy and legal expertise. What happens in liquidation when the company goes bust? What about seizure of assets? None of those points has been dealt with. Something must be said for giving schools more freedom, but the manner in which these proposals will work is unacceptable. At the end of the day, when schools are strapped for funds, when there is a dearth of teachers—both retention and recruitment—and when we have an unprecedented number of teachers teaching subjects for which they were not trained, are we really asking them, out of the precious teaching time of our children, to indulge in some very ill-thought-out proposals? I think not. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Amendments Nos. 12D and 12E, Amendment No. 12F.—(Baroness Blatch.)

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long by saying too much. I start by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, a very happy birthday and to say, as she said, "There are better ways to spend a birthday than this".
	We have debated this issue many times and at considerable length. I want briefly to say why from these Benches we continue to oppose these clauses standing part of the Bill. First, and primarily, we believe that head teachers, teachers and school governors should concentrate on running schools and not running companies. Neither they nor the LEAs, which are supposed to be supervising them, have the time, the skills, the money or the expertise necessary to do the job properly. They should, as I said yesterday, stick to the knitting. They should be running schools, not running companies.
	Secondly, we share with the Official Opposition the feeling that these ideas have not been thought through properly. We are, for example, extremely worried about what liabilities local education authorities might incur as a result of these provisions. We have been given multiple assurances time and again. We understand that these companies are set up on the one hand to purchase materials and on the other to provide services where LEAs will only have to underwrite the purchasing activities. The other companies, which are Companies Act companies, are limited liability companies. Basically, if they make a mess of things and go into liquidation their own debts are their own debts. But I do not understand why there should be this distinction.
	Why, if a company is a purchasing company, should the local education authority have to underwrite it? There is still a great deal of uncertainty around these provisions. I share very much the feeling that there are liabilities here. Here we have school governors and teachers who are not used to running companies and may get themselves into deep water. They may incur liabilities. As the noble Baroness said, where do these liabilities end? Who accepts them? At the end of the day it is public money which is at stake here because one is looking at school resources which may be needed to bail out silly mistakes.
	Thirdly, in spite of assurances, we are still not clear that there is not a hidden agenda behind these proposals. We have had mixed and contradictory messages about these companies once they are set up. We are told that they cannot run schools. That is the job of the governing bodies. Supposing the governing body wants to contract out the teaching at the school? Is it or is it not allowed to do that? It was clear from the answer given in the other place in Committee by the Minister, at that time, Mr Timms, that he thought that the bodies could do this. We then had a contradictory answer saying that they could not. It is all extraordinarily unsatisfactory. We do not really know where we are.
	Lastly, we have argued that the provisions are unnecessary. We have been told time and again that the main purpose is to enable schools to exploit new ideas jointly with other schools. We constantly come back to this idea of developing a CD-ROM. A number of teachers have developed teaching materials and either shared them with other teachers or have set up companies of their own, which they can do perfectly well. They can go into business with printing companies or with CD-ROM stamping companies. They can take the profits or they can put the profits back into schools. There is no need for school governing bodies to have to do it.
	The Minister in another place—and I see Mr Miliband standing at the Bar. I am delighted to have you with us, Mr Miliband—ended his speech by saying that we have, and I agree with him, remarkable skills in our best schools; and that the provisions in the Bill are here to enable those skills to be shared among the schools and to support other schools. Yes, but we have been sharing those skills for many a long year. We do not need a company to share those skills. Why we on these Benches feel so unhappy with these provisions is because for many a long year we have had a spirit of co-operation, of mutual trust, in sharing these services between schools. Now we have to sell these services through a company to other schools instead of through mutual trust and co-operation.
	It is very much like the internal market which was introduced into the health service by the Official Opposition during their years in government. It did not work in the health service and the internal market will not work in the education services. We do not like these provisions and we do not think they should be in this Bill.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the extra sparkle that the champagne has given her remarks. May we join her?
	There has been much concern on the Opposition Benches about the provision. I do not share that concern. The provision is about schools doing things together through a specific vehicle—a company. It is clear, and we have been given many assurances, that there will be no coercion on schools to form confederations or federations. It will be voluntary. The issue of forming a company will be voluntary. No one can require a company to be formed by a school.
	Our concerns turn, therefore, on whether the companies will make a mess of it or whether it is a diversion of energies. I cannot envisage many schools wanting to form a company. But I should have thought that the main energies would come through the use of the time of members of the company who I assume would be members of the governing bodies. The noble Baroness said that these companies are different from ordinary companies. She contrasted the position with that described by Mr Miliband in another place. I welcome the fact that they are different. I welcome the fact that the provisions for regulations have been made mandatory rather than optional and that the local authority will have a supervisory role.
	If the Government decide to use their powers to make a regulation under Clause 11(7), I hope that the local authority will be consulted even though it may be thought that the proposal lies outside its scope. The local authority can satisfy itself, as a potentially supervisory body, that there are adequate prudential arrangements, that the memorandum and articles are satisfactory and that the composition of the company board is satisfactory. Subject to that clarification, I hope that the House will support the Bill as now amended.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that he makes valiant attempts to help the Government when they are really in trouble. I am sure they are grateful for that. However, I did not concentrate on whether they make a mess of it. I concentrated on what happens if the body fails. That is the problem. So many other bodies have power to intervene: the local authority, the Secretary of State and other people. These companies are not different from private companies. Under the proposals, they are set up under company law.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness will have an opportunity to reply, in conformity with the rules of this House.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said, "Before the noble Lord sits down". I shall be guided by the Clerks of the House not by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Perhaps I may say that the bodies are under company law and will be obliged to conform with company law.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I picked up a point which I understood the noble Baroness made: that Mr Miliband was in error in saying in another place that these companies were like other companies. The reason that they are different is that they are subject to the supervisory oversight of the LEA and that the LEA would have to give consent. Of course, they are covered by company law. They are companies under company law.
	As regards what happens if they fail, I understand that if they are a purchasing company the obligations of the LEA are the same as if they were not a purchasing company and it was an informal arrangement. We have been told that several times.
	If it is a service providing company, it is a company limited by guarantee or limited by shares. If the company fails, its obligations are determined by the guarantee or the shares which will be very small indeed. They do not need to be substantial. I do not believe that the issue is not clear or that there is some bogey that we do not understand.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would expect the local education authority to play the role that it plays with all maintained schools in ensuring that schools are behaving in their best interests, and playing the role that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, outlined. I have no difficulty with that.
	Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that of course schools have been sharing their skills for a long time. This is purely an additional way in which schools can operate. It is nothing more. There is no hidden agenda. After all the work we have done together, I was concerned that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, should still consider that there might be a hidden agenda. There is not.
	We are looking at ways in which schools can enhance the role they play in the future. This is one way. In another place, my honourable friend Mr Miliband referred to private companies. He referred to the fact that private companies already can sell goods and services to schools. The profits go to the private company. I wish the private company no ill. But I want schools to be able to use their resources, abilities and skills in that way. That is what the provision is about.
	Economies of scale are important to schools. Schools often work together in new ways. Through the PFI I was recently involved with a group of schools which will come together on a site—primary schools, secondary schools and further education colleges. Although that does not relate to this part of the Bill, it demonstrates that there are different ways.
	Having listened to debate on Clause 20 in another place, I say with deep sincerity that we have had many opportunities in this House to consider the relationship between different clauses.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I listened to the Minister's remarks about private companies. Can the company sell goods and/or services to a third body that is not an educational body?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am delighted to answer that point directly. In Clause 10(1) the power is limited to forming companies to provide services to schools to facilitate provision to schools. The local education authority functions relate only to education functions. So these companies cannot go further than the provisions specified in those clauses. I hope that I have answered fully the noble Baroness's point.
	I have deliberately given inoffensive examples because it is an inoffensive measure. It is not designed to take our schools into an Alice in Wonderland or any other kind of world. It is important that Government think about where schools are going and ensure that they have the ability to develop their resources and skills. The provision is simply a part of that process and no more.
	We have debated substantially the issue and the entire Bill. It has been a privilege to be part of that debate. I believe that this is nothing more than an enabling measure for some schools to take forward. On that basis, and on the basis that we have best schools, good teachers and governors who are able to do new things, I commend the Motion to the House.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Clause 10(1)(a) refers to "any schools". There are language schools and private schools, as well as all the maintained schools. The paragraph does not specify "maintained schools"; and there is no qualification in the definitional subsection (8) of what are "schools". So a third body could be another school—"any school", to cite the Bill.
	To return to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I refer him to Clause 11(7). That provides that regulations—yet another raft of regulations—can be produced to,
	"restrict the circumstances in which a local education authority may refuse to give any consent applied for under subsection (1)".
	So it will be possible to second-guess the local authority and remove—airbrush—it from the picture.
	I am not satisfied. Answers have always been given in general terms. The specific questions that we have asked since the Bill's inception have not properly been answered.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12F) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 120.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

13Leave out Clause 11.
	The Commons insisted on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 13 but proposed the following amendments to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement-
	13F Page 7, line 40, leave out "the requirements set out" and insert "any applicable requirements of regulations under"
	13G Page 7, line 42, leave out "has ceased to satisfy those" and insert "fails to satisfy any such"
	13H Page 7, line 43, leave out from beginning to "requirements" on page 8, line 3 and insert— "(3) Regulations—
	(a)shall provide that except in such cases as may be prescribed, the company must be prohibited by its constitution from admitting to its membership any person who is not of a prescribed description,and
	(b) may impose"
	13J Page 8, line 10, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
	13K Page 8, line 18, at end insert-
	imes;(5A) Regulations may also-"
	13L Page 8, line 19, leave out "so designated" and insert "designated as the supervising authority for a company"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. l3 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13F to 13L to the words so restored to the Bill. I have already spoken to these amendments.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13F to 13L to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Baroness Blatch: had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to Amendments Nos. 13F to 13K, Amendment No. 13M:
	13MLeave out from "House" to end and insert
	imes;do insist on their Amendment No. 13".

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, clearly I shall not be pressing Amendment No. 13M. However, in passing, I have to say that we shall be watching and waiting: we shall watch every regulation, every set of guidance, every set of guidelines; and we shall follow them through. As I am a newly-appointed governor, I shall be on the receiving end of much of this bumph. I shall hold everyone on the Government's side who has spoken in this debate to account.

[Amendment No. 13M not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

House again in Committee.

Lord Trefgarne: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 6, line 18; leave out "to consider a bill should sit on any one day" and insert "should be appointed at any one time, and no Grand Committee should be appointed until any previous Grand Committee has reported."

Lord Trefgarne: I rise to move this amendment, which stands also in the names of my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
	During an earlier discussion this afternoon I mentioned the inevitable call upon resources. I was then referring particularly to financial resources. However, as more than one noble Lord said at that time, it is not just financial resources that we have to consider. If we have more than one Grand Committee sitting on a particular day, it seems to me that we shall overload the resources of your Lordships' House in quite an unacceptable way.
	First, we shall need Clerks, Doorkeepers, and security officials. But, no less importantly—perhaps even more so—there will be inconvenience for noble Lords who might take an interest in more than one Grand Committee when both are sitting on the same day; and, indeed, the House may also be sitting.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I know that the noble Lord will accept that I intervene here merely to be helpful. The point he has just raised is dealt with in paragraph 16 on page 6 of the report, where it says:
	"We recommend however that only one Grand Committee to consider a bill should sit on any one day".
	I hope that that helps to clarify the situation.

Lord Trefgarne: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. My amendment as set out seeks to ensure that one Grand Committee should complete its work before the next one commences. That is the purpose of the amendment that I have tabled. I apologise if I did not explain that as clearly as I should have done in my remarks.
	It is important that one Grand Committee should finish its business before another starts up for the reasons I have already explained. It is more a question of deploying Clerks and officials behind the scenes. Indeed, noble Lords often become involved in work behind the scenes as well as on the Floor of the House or in the Grand Committee itself. It is for that reason that I have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol: If Amendment No. 11 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 12.

Lord Elton: Amendment No. 12 tabled in my name is grouped with this amendment. I should make it clear that I support entirely my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in his amendment, which would have the effect of limiting the volume of legislation with which this House can deal. Furthermore, it would limit the number of occasions on which noble Lords would be required to become involved in several Bills during the same week.
	My amendment would serve as an alternative to that tabled by my noble friend should his fail, although I support his amendment in preference to my own.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The amendments, if carried, would produce a more restrictive and draconian circumstance than we have at the moment. If we so wish, we can commit a number of Bills to Grand Committee. However, I should remind noble Lords of what I read out in order to assist in this matter. I refer to paragraph 16, in which the recommendation is quite specific, stating that not more than one Grand Committee should sit on any particular day.
	We have had perfectly acceptable arrangements recently when a Grand Committee sat on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and at the same general time, although not on the same days, the Adoption and Children Bill was taken in Grand Committee.
	There is no problem here. Recommendation 16 makes it perfectly plain. The amendments would impose a limitation on what can be done already.

Lord Elton: While what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has said is perfectly true, at present we could hold four Grand Committees, one on Monday, one on Tuesday, one on Wednesday and another on Thursday. We should not be able to do that. That is why I have tabled my amendment.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am not at all sure whether Grand Committees are in any case a good idea. Generally they lead to a much more lengthy Report stage. I have been serving on the Grand Committee on the Adoption and Children Bill, but I think that a great many amendments will be tabled on Report for the simple reason that, in Grand Committee, it is not possible to call a Division.
	The same point applied to certain Bills in the last Parliament. Legislation taken in Grand Committee off the Floor of the House then generated very much longer Report stages. Given that, I question the value of Grand Committees. It would be preferable to return to taking all business on the Floor of the House.

Lord Trefgarne: I have a certain sympathy with the position taken by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, but it is not the point that I wish to argue. My argument turns on the fact that the House needs to deploy considerable resources in support of Grand Committees. It would be better if we held only one Grand Committee at a time for the reasons underlined and supported by my noble friend Lord Elton, whose amendment we are also discussing and to which my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has also put his name. It is a question of the resources of the House and not only of individual Peers on particular days.
	It would be better if we did not create a situation where, as my noble friend Lord Elton suggested, we might have one Grand Committee on a Tuesday, another on a Wednesday, a third one on a Thursday, and perhaps even a fourth one on the Monday. As has been pointed out, that has happened rarely, if ever, in the past and it seems wrong that we should make provision for it. I have therefore brought forward Amendment No. 11. However, I do not wish to delay the Committee unreasonably. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Elton: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 6, line 18, leave out "on any one day" and insert "in any one week"

Lord Elton: I should be obliged if the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House would express an opinion as to the likelihood of having more than two Grand Committees in one week.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Extremely unlikely.

Lord Elton: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that answer. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is not in his place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Trefgarne: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 6, line 19, at end insert "No Grand Committee should sit unless the House is also sitting."

Lord Trefgarne: The amendment covers a slightly different point. It is as much a probing amendment as a practical one. I am not clear what the position is if a Grand Committee sits when the House is not also sitting, particularly in regard to the provision of doorkeepers and other staff. I am also not clear about the more constitutional provisions. For example, do Prayers have to be read if the Grand Committee is sitting on its own? Is it necessary for a right reverend Prelate to be in attendance to say Prayers? Is it necessary for the Mace to be with the Grand Committee if the House is not sitting? Is it open to noble Lords to attend the Grand Committee—even if they are not members of it—when the House is not sitting and to collect their expenses?
	Precious few answers were given to these considerations during the deliberations of the Procedure Committee. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will be a little more forthcoming today. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Amendment No. 23 has been grouped with this amendment. I do not entirely understand why because it does not cover quite the same point that I wish to address.
	So far as concerns the amendment of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, I am afraid that the horse has already bolted. Paragraph 9.28 of the Companion states:
	"A committee can sit at any time during a recess, but no committee may sit during prorogation or dissolution".
	I am sure that that is what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House was about to say.
	My Amendment No. 23 seeks to replace paragraph 28 of the report. For the reasons given in paragraph 29, this matter needs a little further thought. I do not object in principle to a Grand Committee sitting in September—or at any other time when the House is not sitting—but, as noble Lords who have been in the building during the Summer Recess will know, in September the place looks like a builder's yard. There are carpets up all over the place, wires hanging out of ceilings and pipes dripping or certainly not connected. It looks like a building site.
	The effect of sitting in September would either restrict the Grand Committee to a tiny part of the building which is otherwise not being built over, or it would be totally impracticable because of the length of time that builders need when working on the Parliamentary Estate. So my suggestion is that the Clerk of the Parliaments should consider not only the points that the Procedure Committee has already suggested—he should consider paragraph 29 before paragraph 28 becomes operable—but also the other point about the House being a builder's yard.
	There is yet another reason. It will be just a little more difficult to find noble Lords to chair such Grand Committees during a period when the House is not otherwise sitting. I see the Chairman of Committees nodding at me. We have had private discussions on this matter and on the problems of finding a suitable number of Deputy Chairmen and Deputy Speakers at moments during periods when the House is currently sitting, especially when a Grand Committee is sitting at the same time. That, too, is a valid point.

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, which have reinforced the proposal in Amendment No. 21 in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, which we shall debate shortly.
	My question to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is this. If a Grand Committee sits when the main House is not sitting, will it have all the rights and privileges of a Grand Committee that takes place when the House is sitting; or are there rules and regulations that would make it difficult for that Grand Committee to operate in the most effective manner, and in the manner in which it could have operated had the House been sitting?

Lord Elton: A further point needs to be addressed. What distinguishes a Grand Committee from Select Committees is that it is a Committee of the Whole House meeting outside the Chamber. Therefore, it draws on the expertise of the whole House. But if the House knows that it is not sitting in September, most Members will have made arrangements to be elsewhere at that time. If it is then announced towards the end of July that a Grand Committee will be meeting in September, the resources of the rest of the House in terms of personnel will not be available to the committee. So it will be a bit of a lame duck. For a Grand Committee to sit in what is normally a holiday period when the House as a whole is not sitting and normally does not sit is a thoroughly bad idea.

Lord Mancroft: The point I want to make is not necessarily restricted to this amendment but relates generally to the concept of Grand Committees. The report suggests that we also set up two other Select Committees.
	The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House remarked earlier on the lack of volunteers to sit on committees. We have talked about resources and we shall refer to the subject again later. One of the resources which in my view will be stretched—and particularly by the use of Grand Committees—is the number of Peers who will be able to sit on the committees: Grand Committees, pre-legislative scrutiny committees, two more Select Committees and Committees on the Floor of the House, some sitting at the same time. Undoubtedly we are stretched today in terms of manning our committees and, as we have heard, to chair our committees. We shall be further stretched by putting in two additional committees.
	There is a further factor. Historically—there is no reason why it should not change—this House has sat as a House, in this Chamber, to do most of its work. That is quite unusual in legislatures. The United States Senate, for example, spends more time on committee work than on the floor of the chamber. That is not to say that either of those is better or worse than the other. But there is no doubt that, if we are to have more Grand Committees, more Select Committees and more pre-legislative scrutiny committees, there will be less emphasis on the work that is done in this Chamber.
	Therefore, the mood, the tone and the way in which this House operates will change. That is not a reason not to do it; perhaps it is a very good direction in which we should go in future. However, there is no doubt that this report does not consider that, and there is no doubt that your Lordships should consider it.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Some of the troubles that your Lordships have expressed are specifically dealt with in the last sentence of paragraph 28 of the Procedure Committee report, which I shall not read as your Lordships will have it before you.
	The answer to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is yes. The answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is that the Director of Parliamentary Works and Services is well aware that both Houses are at least considering altering the parliamentary timetable. He knows about the possibility of proceedings in September and will, of course, make the necessary arrangements.
	The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked a number of questions. Staff will be here as necessary. Do we need Prayers? No. Do we need the Mace? No. He says, "Members of the Grand Committee". By definition, as he himself said a moment or two ago, every Member of this House is entitled to attend as a Member of the Grand Committee, and accordingly can claim expenses.

Lord Trefgarne: Can the noble and learned Lord say whether the Sittings of the Grand Committee, if it sits when the House is not sitting, count in the 40 days' praying time allowed in respect of statutory instruments?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is the point set out in paragraph 29 of the report.

Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord referred to the last sentence of paragraph 28, which says:
	"it is essential that the Government business managers give reasonable notice when Grand Committees will be meeting in September".
	I rise merely to say that I made an inquiry the other day about the possibility of renting a smallish house in Cornwall this summer. Nine months ahead, all of the smallish houses—and there were a large number of them—at the disposal of the agency to which I spoke had already been booked. "Reasonable notice" when one is arranging family holidays can be 13 months.

Lord Crickhowell: I have one question which arises from the comments of the Leader of the House. He referred to the need for the managers of the maintenance work and so on to be told in advance and given adequate notice. In the Procedure Committee, we were told—as he will recall; I referred to this earlier—that if the House were to sit in September, at least six months' notice would have to be given so that the contractual arrangements for maintenance could be altered. Will that apply also to the Sittings of Grand Committees? Will it be necessary to give six months' notice so that the contractual arrangements for maintenance can be altered?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is not possible to give a categoric answer to that question because it would depend on the particular room being used by the particular Grand Committee. However, I remind your Lordships that what was said in the Procedure Committee was that the intention is to proceed with law reform Bills, for which type of legislation there is not an overwhelming appetite. I would not expect any Grand Committee room to be filled to overflowing.

Lord Carter: It may help the Committee to know that, in all the building and maintenance arrangements, there is a proviso, I believe, that the contractors must be prepared to clear the House within two days to allow the recall of Parliament.

Lord Trefgarne: I am obliged to all noble Lords for those contributions. I do not think that I need to pursue this matter, although I might have been tempted to do so in other circumstances. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Elton: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 6, line 46, at end insert-
	"except those bills originating in the House of Commons in which one or more clauses have not been considered in committee in that House. Preventing divisions on amendments to such clauses in committee removes a necessary means of establishing and refining the views of this House on matters of substance, and leads to extended debate on Report stage. The debate on Report is conducted under rules of procedure unsuited to the search for an accommodation of conflicting views which should precede the resort to a division. In practice the result is numerous and sometimes tortuous exchanges 'before the minister sits down'. If the result is misunderstanding, divisions may be called unnecessarily; if in doubt, they may be further deferred for consultation, adding to the number of divisions on third reading. Accordingly, we recommend that when a bill that has been sent to this House by the House of Commons has been considered by a Grand Committee, any clauses that have not been discussed in a committee of the Commons should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House of this House."

Lord Elton: I hope that we can attend briefly to this matter, particularly because of the frequency with which clauses that have not been discussed at all in the House of Commons are put before your Lordships. My intention is clearly set out in the preamble of the amendment itself. Following the Leader of the House, I shall assume that your Lordships have it before you and have read it.
	That is the reason for seeking to recommit clauses in a Bill which has been through the Grand Committee to a Committee of the Whole House when that Committee reports. I beg to move.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: This amendment seeks to amend paragraph 20 of the report. I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for having taken on board at least part of the point that I made in the debate in May. However, I am not sure that the paragraph does full justice to the point that I sought to make.
	I referred to the practice of dividing the Finance Bill in the House of Commons as that was where the process in another place started. Others who took part in the debate in May recollected with great clarity the long arguments that were held before the sensible arrangement was reached that a Bill could be committed—mostly in the other place to a Standing Committee—because opposition parties could be invited to suggest particular clauses that might be debated on the Floor of the House.
	The point that I made in May was that that was not now in another place confined to Finance Bills. Without wanting to repeat what I said then, I remind the Committee that other Bills have been split with the Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House and then the remaining clauses to a Standing Committee. The examples I gave were: the Criminal Justice Bill, 1989–90; the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, 1989–90; the Sunday Trading Bill, 1993–94; the Family Law Bill, 1995–96 and the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, 1996–97.
	The procedure of splitting a Bill in another place is by no means confined to Finance Bills. Indeed, there may well be Bills with one or two controversial clauses which could be voted upon if those clauses were taken on the Floor of the House in a Committee of the Whole House. That would get round the endless business at prolonged Report stages of going back over the same ground that has been covered in a Grand Committee with the inevitable remark, "Before the Minister sits down, will he deal with the following"? We are all familiar with such remarks which are great time wasters. I put that proposal before the House in May as a serious suggestion that might ease the process of sending more Bills to Grand Committee.
	As I understand the report, there is no procedural reason why a Motion to commit a Bill should not do,
	"as Lord Jenkin has proposed".
	If that could be confirmed, it would be helpful. We may be able to identify a suitable Bill in the next Session of Parliament. I might move an amendment to the committal Motion. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us words of comfort on the matter.

Lord Higgins: I support Amendment No. 14 moved by my noble friend Lord Elton. I support the views expressed by my noble friend who has just spoken.
	I did not intend to speak in this debate. I am perhaps a little prejudiced in some ways after 33 years in another place and having chaired the Procedure Committee there on a number of occasions and been chairman for well over a decade of the Liaison Committee which co-ordinates the Select Committees. However, I am somewhat puzzled—perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House can help me—by the way in which we are proceeding. For example, I am not clear why it is that we have before us only the extracts from the minutes of the proceedings of the committee rather than the whole proceedings. I am not clear why, as I would normally expect, the evidence was not printed with the report or at least made available to the House. There clearly was some evidence, as one of the amendments refers to the memorandum by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth.
	I am also not clear what some of the amendments made are. I leave on one side the fact that in one Division it was said that there were Contents 2, Not-Contents 21, when the list of Not-Contents was 22; whether it was 21 or 22 I do not know. At all events, it is not clear at the end of the annex where it says that,
	"Paragraph 6 was further amended and agreed to",
	what the amendments were—we have no idea.
	That brings me to my main point: it is resolved that the report as amended be the report of the committee. What we are doing today is amending the report of that committee, but the committee has already agreed what the report is. I would have expected today that a Motion would have been tabled to agree with the report or to disagree with some parts of it and that amendments would be moved to agree or disagree with it. Surely it is common sense that we cannot amend the report of the committee which, in the clearest possible terms, has been decided on as the committee's report? We are not the committee; we are the whole House. I hope that the Minister can help me on that issue.
	Having said that, I support strongly the amendment in the light of the experience a few days ago on the Tax Credits Bill. It arrived from another place in an appalling state. It had been programmed all the way through, and understandably in those circumstances, as the Opposition know that they cannot deal with all the detail in the time allocated, they make general points.
	Particularly worryingly, the Bill arrived in this House in such a state that a huge number of amendments had to be tabled by the Government the night before we were due to go into Grand Committee. We had to delay the Grand Committee because they were tabled so late. It was clear not only that the other place had not looked at the Bill in detail, but also that the Minister herself did not understand it, and, as became apparent in the proceedings in this House, did not understand that it was completely unworkable in the way it came to this House from another place.
	We then sat in Grand Committee. For the reasons set out in my noble friend's amendment, the procedures in Grand Committee are highly unsatisfactory. The Opposition cannot move amendments and vote on them, but if a government amendment is moved, unless one objects to it, it goes into the Bill. The effect is that unless one objects all the way through to a series of amendments—which effectively aborts the whole procedure in Grand Committee—then, if one wants to return to those points on Report, one has to table an amendment to reverse what went through on the nod in Grand Committee. That is a totally unsatisfactory situation.
	If some clauses in a Bill are controversial, then, for the reasons set out by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, we should divide the Bill so that the controversial clauses are taken on the Floor of the House. They should not be taken in Grand Committee upstairs, where the situation is completely wrong. In responding to the debate, I hope that the Leader of the House will accept these overwhelming arguments and agree to my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My name is attached to Amendment No. 14 in support of my noble friend Lord Elton. Unlike my noble friend Lord Higgins, who has made a qualitative speech, mine will be essentially quantitative. It was as a consequence of a speech of mine on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill that my noble friend Lord Elton took an interest in the subject. I have established a self-denying ordinance that I would allude only once during the Committee stage of any Bill to the fact that we were dealing with clauses that had not been debated in the House of Commons.
	The issue arose originally on the Education Bill, when it was a matter of some importance. A number of inter-related clauses had gone undebated, so we had no report of the Government's view of the connections between them. Before we broke this evening to consider Commons amendments to the Education Bill, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal said that he had marked up the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill with the initials "ND" against clauses. I inferred that stood for "not debated". There were certainly a number of such clauses in that Bill as well.
	I have not done an exhaustive trawl of all the Bills that we have considered lately because it is self-evident under the programme Motions that the Government have in the Commons that great chunks of Bills will arrive in front of us undebated.
	The case that I used as my bisque on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill was that at the end of the proceedings, when the Commons had run out of time under the programme Motion, there were 27 clauses still waiting to be debated. None of those clauses was debated in the Commons before the Bill came to us. Of those, eight had government amendments tabled to them, so there was clearly something to say about them. There were another 10 to which no amendments had been tabled, so one might make a reasonable assumption that they were not controversial. However, there were a further nine government new clauses that had been prepared in Committee in the Commons—which lasted for only 10 sittings—one of which was amended on Report, but not debated at that stage. We found ourselves discussing an important clause in Committee—I acknowledge that we were in Committee and not in Grand Committee, but the principle still applies—that had gone wholly undebated in the Commons and took a long time in this House. Had we been in Grand Committee, we would not have been discussing it in the way we did on the Floor of the House. There has been an alliance between the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I to get the issue addressed. If such clauses are taken in Grand Committee, only when they arrive on Report will there be an opportunity in this House to vote on them.
	As the preamble or prolegomenon to our recommendation states, that is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with a controversial issue.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise to the Committee for not being in my place when the amendment was moved, for not readily excusable reasons. I support it because it is relevant to the Motion that I have to move tomorrow after Question Time.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is yes, I confirm the observation to which he referred in paragraph 20. The answers to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, are: the complete minutes are available in the Library; neither the working group nor the Procedure Committee took formal evidence of the sort that is normally printed with reports; the procedure that we have adopted today—I do not know whether the noble Lord was in his place at the time—is the result of a helpful suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which I was happy to adopt and commend to the House, which agreed it without Division.

Lord Higgins: It may have been thought helpful to proceed in this way. It is too late to change it now. However, surely it is not a sensible way of proceeding. It is blatantly clear that we cannot amend the report of the committee. We ought to have a Motion to approve it and we could then agree or disagree with that approval. We cannot have a report of a committee and then try to change it as a report of the committee. It is not a report of the committee in those circumstances.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand what the noble Lord says, but we had this discussion at about ten past three and approximately seven hours have now passed.

Lord Higgins: Can the noble and learned Lord explain why we should presumably treat this as a precedent so far as concerns future occasions?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is quite usual to do so and I believe that everyone understands what will happen. The proposals that are accepted will be put into effect. If any are defeated, they will not be put into effect.
	Our duty here is to carry out our own work of scrutiny irrespective of what the Commons have done. Indeed, parts of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill had not been discussed in the Commons. We discussed them extremely fully, and everyone who participated in the proceedings on that Bill believed that we had done extremely well in that regard.
	It is not our job to pass judgment on the quality of scrutiny in the Commons. We do not consider procedurally, but I accept that we consider politically whether scrutiny has occurred in the Commons. If, for example, excellent scrutiny had taken place in the Commons, would we then limit our scrutiny here? I think not.
	There are many opportunities to consider a Bill. I quite understand that some of your Lordships do not like the idea of Grand Committees, but that is a different issue. What is said here is that, for whatever reason in whatever circumstance, if a clause has not been previously considered in a Commons Committee, it should automatically be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. I do not myself consider that to be a wise way in which to proceed.

Lord Elton: As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord's principal argument is that we take no cognisance of what happens in another place. Until Monday, I should have been content to accept that argument. On Monday, however, the other place told us what was going on there. Its reason was that, having reached its decision without the opportunity for debate, it would not be appropriate to accept our amendments. Therefore, the other place revealed that, and it was reflected by the Attorney-General at col. 57 of the Official Report for 22nd July.
	The next reference is at col. 64. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, said:
	"A programme Motion was agreed with the Opposition in another place before the debate took place".—[Official Report, 22/7/02; col. 64.]
	Therefore, we were party to that information. We were told that the programme Motion allowed three hours, and were therefore party to that information. We were told that that time was taken up with matters which Members of another place wished to debate.
	Later, at col. 65, the noble and learned Lord went on to add that,
	"the Commons did not debate the matter; the time was used for other purposes".
	At col. 66, he said:
	"I understand that the Government did not have a majority on the Reasons Committee",
	drawing us further and further into what is going on in another place.
	Penultimately, at col. 66, he said:
	"In the absence of a debate ... the Reasons Committee has to find what it believes the will of the House to be".—[Official Report, 22/7/02; col. 66.]
	Therefore, at the word of a member of Her Majesty's Government, we are led further into the knowledge of what is proceeding in another place. Finally, in relation to a view on Part 5, the Attorney-General pointed out that the matter had been debated fully on other occasions in another place. In other words, this House, at the invitation of the Attorney-General, took into full account all the procedures in another place.
	Therefore, I do not accept the argument that we cannot take cognisance of what happens in another place. I believe that Parliament should examine legislation fully. If that cannot be done fully in another place, it is more important that it is done here.
	I regret to do this to the Leader of the House, who has not had the advantage that we have had of a break during the Northern Ireland Statement, but I shall test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 98.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 6, line 49, leave out from "Fridays)." to end of line 3 on page 7 and insert-
	"The Procedure Committee endorses Group recommendation (h) and proposes the following new Standing Order:
	imes;Restriction on length of sittings"
	39A (1) On any day when the House sits for public business before midday, the Clerk at the Table may not call any Notice or Order of the Day after 7.30 pm nor may the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair put the question on any amendment not already debated; likewise on any day when the House sits for public business after midday, the Clerk at the Table. may not call any Notice or Order of the Day after 10 pm nor may the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair put the question on any amendment not already debated.
	(2) When the House is in Committee, the question may likewise not be put on any Clause or Schedule not previously debated."

The Earl of Caithness: As the Committee will remember, I degrouped Amendment No. 15. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in his place because on Amendment No. 5 he said, "Well, really what we want to know is whether we can go home early". The amendment ensures that we go home at the proposed time.
	When we discussed this matter in the Procedure Committee, we were told that this was all part of a package. The benefit to the House would be that it would rise at about ten o'clock and that the Government would get their way with more pre-legislative scrutiny. I thought I had heard those words before. Indeed I had. In 1994 we had the same argument with the Rippon committee. It suggested that we should make use of Grand Committees because that would allow the House to rise earlier. It has not risen earlier. The executive got exactly what it wanted, which was Grand Committees and the House got nothing in return.
	I looked for a way of trying to establish that the House would get some benefit. So I went back to the original wording in the working group's proposals. Therefore, there is nothing radical in what I suggest. Indeed, it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who in the Procedure Committee suggested an alteration to the wording that he had agreed in his working group and diluted the strength of the commitment to rise at ten o'clock.
	In essence the noble and learned Lord has transferred the power to decide when the House should rise from the House itself to the usual channels. If we have a Standing Order that says that the House must rise at ten o'clock it is up to the House to determine whether that is changed. It is, in the words of the Procedure Committee, "entirely a matter for the usual channels" on which the House has no say. I appreciate there is greater flexibility, but we must remember that the "usual channels" were not designed to help Back-Benchers; they were designed to get government business through. Therefore, the House will lose out again. I fear that the Government will get what they want out of the report and the House will be the loser. I beg to move.

Lord Roper: I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment. As the noble Earl said, this is the original proposal which came forward from the Leader's Group on working practices. However, when we came to consider it in the Procedure Committee, points which were made earlier about the need for flexibility were made, and the severe constraints which would be imposed if we had an absolute ten o'clock limit—the kind of points made so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and by other noble Lords taking part in the debate at an earlier stage.
	Therefore, on balance, the Procedure Committee found that what we had recommended, which is that the Companion should recommend that normally we would adjourn at ten o'clock, should come forward for the Committee's consideration today.
	I hope that the noble Earl will think about this matter before pressing it to a vote. My view is that we ought at least to give the voluntary principle and—those disreputable people—"the usual channels" a chance. If in the course of the next year we are unable to deliver on the ten o'clock finish as the norm, which we have suggested to the Committee today, I believe it would be right for us to go back. We should have a kind of sunrise clause, accepted by agreement if not formally on the face of the Bill: that if we have not solved the issue voluntarily after a year we should consider the need for a Standing Order to do so. On that basis, I hope that it will be possible for the amendment not to be pressed today.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the driving force which has motivated me throughout has been the position of the Back-Benchers in your Lordships' House. I am truly nervous that the proposals contained in the Procedure Committee report, including those to which the amendment relates, further erode the rights of Back-Benchers at the expense of the Front Benches and in particular of the Government. It is the duty of this House to hold Ministers to account and to make them explain their proposals in a clear and concise manner. The arrangements that the proposals bring forward do not enhance that requirement. For that reason, they are to be regretted. If the amendment moved by my noble friend achieves that desirable aim, I support it.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, a cut-off time of 10 o'clock, or any specific hour, could lead to the ridiculous position of 20 minutes of a five day Committee stage being hung over. The choice is either to return to the matter the next day or, more likely, for it not to be considered and just dropped. The inevitable battle is about practicality and the real fear of the noble Earl, which I share, that the usual channels will erode the provision. I should have had greater sympathy with the noble Earl's amendment if it provided for the normal practice to be to stop at 10 o'clock with an absolute cut-off a little later so that there was some leeway.
	If erosion takes place, we should come back, and very soon, with a rule such as the noble Earl seeks to make perhaps with my small margin in it. It could be a short trial period; it need not last two years. As soon as those we deeply respect, namely the usual channels, start to erode the position, we quickly table an amendment to that effect.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Roper. We are at the mercy of the Government. They can win any Division they wish.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what on earth is the objective of dividing? Let us be realistic. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has accepted on one occasion—there may have been two; I have not been present throughout the debate—that he would consider Amendment No. 8 and deal with it. That, for me, is one of the main considerations.
	On the other matters which have arisen, we are really at the mercy of the Government. What on earth is the objective of dividing, especially at this hour of the night? There is every objective in moving amendments and seeking to persuade. It is obviously possible to do so.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to follow the course the noble Lord, Lord Roper, suggests and confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I am perfectly content to see whether the measure works to the satisfaction of the House for, say, a year. I accept that two years may be too long. Originally, we thought that we had got it right. Representations were made that we needed a certain amount of flexibility. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about Back-Benchers. The argument which convinced me was that a Back-Bencher may have waited patiently in the House throughout the debate. The House comes to the last two amendments in which he or she may be particularly interested and there is then the cut-off. We simply wanted decent flexibility.
	If there is erosion or bad faith, I am perfectly happy to return to the issue in a year's time. I hope that that satisfies the noble Earl.

The Earl of Caithness: When the Conservative Party was in power, I remember sitting as a Back-Bencher and waiting until two o'clock in the morning for my amendment to be called. Exactly what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House described occurred: the usual channels decided to stop about two amendments before mine. If I had known that earlier in the evening, I could have gone home.
	Wherever we place the cut-off, some people will be hurt. Rippon did not deliver the goods because there was no check on the executive. The Procedure Committee's proposal also contains no check on the executive, but I am grateful to all Members who have spoken in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, has come up with an interesting idea, which I support. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, for picking up that idea. I hope that the House will consider the matter, because it concerns a serious point at which power to make decisions is being transferred from the House to the usual channels. We must return to the proposal if it does not work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Lord Trefgarne: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Paragraph 22, page 7, line 12, leave out:
	
		
			 11 am–1.30 pm House sits for public business 
			  
			 1.30 pm–3 pm House adjourns during pleasure

Lord Trefgarne: I rise to move the amendment standing in my name and in the names of my noble friend the Earl of Caithness and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and to speak to Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20—although Amendment No. 19 is in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
	The purpose of my amendments is simply to disagree with the suggestion that we should sit on Thursday mornings. Frankly, it is undesirable for the House to sit on any morning. We are not a paid House; most of us must earn our living, or at least a partial living, elsewhere. The only time that we can do that with any sort of certainty is in the mornings. If we are regularly to sit on Thursday mornings, that creates a serious problem for those of us, such as myself, who have to earn a modest living somewhere else. That is an important consideration. It is no more than that. I beg to move.

Lord Strathclyde: In the Procedure Committee, I suggested the table laid out on page 7 of the report. I am not hugely attracted to the idea of sitting on Thursday mornings. However, when the working group, the Leader's Group, sent out a questionnaire, the response that we should sit on Thursday mornings was the most popular.
	My noble friend Lord Trefgarne may well be right to say that that will be inconvenient to some noble Lords. It is equally inconvenient to some noble Lords to stay late on Thursdays when they have far to travel. It strikes me that the best way to resolve that is for the House to take a decision. The reason that I put it like that is that if we do not try an experiment, we shall never know whether my noble friend or those who want to stay late on Thursdays are right. We can spend half an hour—or even more, as the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House suggests—discussing the merits of sitting on Thursday mornings, but I suggest that this is one issue on which most Members of the House have already made up their minds. It is a clear-cut case: either we decide to try this out, or we do not.

Viscount Bledisloe: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, trivialises the issue when he describes it as a mere matter of convenience. During all of our debate about the powers, duties and constitution of this House, enormous lip service has been paid to the theory that it is of value to the House to include people who have outside activities and bring them to their work in the House. Those outside activities do not necessarily have to involve earning. They may involve sitting on the boards of charities, but they are doing things that are other than—I was going to say "merely"—legislating or debating. They involve applying ourselves to what we are legislating about, rather than merely doing the legislating.
	It is difficult enough to do such things and be available in the afternoons; having to be available in the mornings as well would make things even more difficult. We might take the example of someone who is offered a seat on a board or on the governing body of a great charity. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings are probably the only occasions on which such bodies meet. So we are ruling out one in three of those occasions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Peston, rightly said that people who undertook to sit on committees of the House owed a duty to be here. However, people who sit on boards or boards of charities owe a similar duty to be there. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, shakes his head, but he would be the first to criticise someone who took the salary of a non-executive director and did not go to the meetings. I do not say that for financial reasons; I say it because Members of your Lordships' House, the Government and the Wakeham report have all said how valuable those who work outside the House are.
	My amendment represents a halfway house. If we must sit on Thursday mornings, it would be intolerable if we took the Committee or Report stage of a long Bill on those mornings. The House might be considering a Bill that takes five days—the Countryside Bill, the Animal Health Bill or whatever. Sod's law being what it is, one can be dead certain that the amendments one has put down for Committee or Report will turn up on a Thursday morning, if that is the one time one cannot be here. We might have discrete debates on Thursday morning about Select Committee reports or orders that need confirmation, and if one cannot be there, one cannot be there. However, if we take the main stages of major Bills on those days, it will not be possible not to be there. One's amendments may be part of a central thesis that one is trying to carry through.
	I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to agree that, on most occasions, Thursday mornings will be taken up with other business and that we will not find that Committee and Report stages of big Bills are taken then. If he can make that concession, I shall be happy try the Thursday morning experiment. If he cannot, he is kicking in the teeth the theory that the House wants people who are also involved in outside activities.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: One of the arguments advanced for sitting on Thursday mornings and rising by 7 o'clock on Thursday is that it would enable people who live a long way away—in Scotland, perhaps—to get home that night. As one who lives in Scotland, I must say that the latest that I could go would be 6 o'clock. Even then, I would not get home until after 11 o'clock.
	Those of us who live a long way away generally go early on a Thursday, if we are not involved in the business. If we are involved in, say, an important Committee stage on a Thursday, we stay the night and go home on Friday. There comes a point at which the business of the House must take precedence over individual convenience. There is no reason, other than not being able to collect one's expenses, why one should not go home on Thursday morning, if one is not involved in Thursday's business.

Lord Peston: The comments made in this debate are very important because they bring out the difference between some of us in this Chamber. There is no obligation to be a Member of this House. Nowadays, when hereditary Peers do not stay on automatically, there is absolutely no obligation whatever. It is a duty and a privilege to be a Member of this House; and it does involve a commitment. It is my judgment that that commitment must take precedence over non-executive directorships, and all the other ways in which some noble Lords earn a living. They have a choice to make: is their choice in life to give the commitment to this House, or, alternatively to say, "I'm going to earn this and that. When I can come in, I shall do so, but I want this House to organise itself so that it is convenient for me". That is the difference between us.
	Noble Lords opposite should not shake their heads. Those of us who chair committees occasionally say that we should like to have our meeting on a particular day because, for example, that may be the only day that the witness can attend. Sometimes on those occasions someone will raise his hand and say that he has a meeting, and so on. When I am chairman of a committee, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I say "That's too bad. That is when the meeting is because your Lordships' House requires our committee to meet and to hear this evidence". This is a fundamental difference between us. I believe that noble Lords should make up their minds.
	The issue is not whether this is a full-time or a part-time commitment. The issue is: what is your priority? In the case of a number of us, this Chamber, together with its legislative scrutiny, is a priority and we build everything else around it. More to the point is the fact that what we are doing now is constructing this House for the future. Our successors will certainly go that way and expect that from us.
	I am not saying that other noble Lords agree with me; I am simply pointing out that there is a deep difference between us. First, there are those who say that this House matters and accept that our agreement to come here is our commitment. We organise our lives accordingly for that purpose. Secondly, there are others who say, "You're lucky to get me. I'm a very important person. I'm very distinguished, and this House gains from my being here. When I can come, which I hope doesn't clash with all the other things that I am doing, I shall do so".
	This House is constantly boasting about the expertise of its Members. But many times I have looked around the Chamber and wondered where all those experts are who often do not seem to have bothered to turn up, even though it is their subject under debate. I am glad that these amendments have been tabled. They distinguish between us. I believe them to be extraordinarily moderate. As noble Lords know, I would meet every morning of the week. Some of us operate very much better in the mornings than in the afternoons—

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Is not the noble Lord arguing that he wants to sit in the mornings because it would suit him? Surely it is important to consider whether the general membership of this Chamber is able to attend in the morning. The noble Lord is making a totally personalised statement.

Lord Peston: I must continue because I had not quite finished my contribution. I take it that that was an interruption rather than a speech. No, I am not speaking in those terms. It is true to say that I operate better in the mornings. I tire during the afternoons; indeed, at this time of night, I do not find it at all convenient to try to get my mind around difficult matters. So, in that sense, it is personal.
	I regard it as a general principle that in serious enterprises—I regard this House as a serious enterprise—the normal working day is just that. It is about time that this Chamber recognised the fact that that is what people in this country do. Moreover, it is what most people in this country expect us to do. They would regard it as preposterous—

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I always listen to what he says with great respect. However, the part of his argument that I cannot follow is why he has said that this is not a question of a part-time or full-time commitment. The noble Lord is simply saying that he thinks that the business of this House should take priority over anything else. But that is not the basis upon which most people are invited to join this House. People are invited to do so on the basis that it is not paid; that it is not full time; and that people have outside commitments. The noble Lord may believe that they should not earn, but they do earn.
	People are not invited to come here and thereby jeopardise, and put aside, everything else in their lives. I do not understand how the noble Lord can say that this is not a question of full-time or part-time attendance. He is saying that it ought to be full time.

Lord Peston: The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, may well have been asked a different question from the one that I was asked when I joined the House. I was asked whether I would devote my efforts to the business of this Chamber. I spent 10 years on the Opposition Benches receiving no extra pay while working in the interests of this House. I tried to fit it in with my other commitments, but I gradually retired because I could not do it any other way. I took on more and more work in this Chamber.
	As I have said, the question I was asked was, "What is your commitment?". I was given a peerage on the assumption that I would be fully committed. It turns out that other noble Lords do not appear to have made that promise, or perhaps they were not asked to do so. However, I have to tell noble Lords that I was asked.

Baroness Blatch: As one of the class of 1987—I speak as a "kept" woman and thus do not have the difficulty of needing to earn a living—we were all told what to expect when we entered this House. However, we took on the commitment on the basis of the hours that prevailed at the time. The proposition before the Committee is to move towards morning sittings. That is wholly new.
	The noble Lord is being self-indulgent, not only on his own behalf but on behalf of many of his noble friends and, indeed, on behalf of some of my noble friends on this side of the Committee. We are not paid expenses as a substitute for a salary. People of working age have to make a living. So far it has been possible quite successfully to combine making a living by using the mornings to do so, and then fulfilling the commitment as a working Peer in this House.
	Noble Lords make a considerable commitment to the work of the House. However, as I have said, that commitment was accepted on the basis of the hours that prevailed at the time.

Lord Denham: Before the noble Lord rises to respond—he is taking rather more than his fair share of time, if I may say so—I wish to say this. His argument that this House should come first works in two ways. He is saying that we should not be selfish and expect to have the mornings off; we are saying that he should be not selfish and expect to go home early on a Thursday afternoon. His argument works both ways.
	This is an important Chamber and it is important that we get the business done. The noble and learned Lord has suggested a change. However, the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would be equally valid for keeping things as they are as it is for making the change sought by the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Peston: I shall try to reach the end of my remarks. I wish to make a speech, but it is not normal for me to be interrupted. Most noble Lords simply glaze over and let me get on with it.
	The point here is that the mornings are not central. Those noble Lords who have experience of these matters often discover that many jobs are undertaken in the afternoon. A meeting is not held only at ten o'clock on a Tuesday morning; it may be called at almost any time. Indeed, people work at any time, including whole days.
	While I do not wish to prolong the debate, we must bear in mind the fact that many noble Lords who come to the House have work that is not even based in London. We should not assume that all jobs can be done during the odd morning in London.
	My argument is twofold. First, the central question is that of commitment: which should come first? Secondly, the assumption ought to be that a noble Lord should make himself available during normal working hours. I say that with a view to the future. If a noble Lord finds that unacceptable, then the time has come for him to reconsider his position.
	I regard the views of my noble and learned friend as very moderate. All he is asking is that the House should meet for a brief period on a Thursday morning. Having said that, I do not understand the proposition for a lunch break; it would take up good working time. No doubt a subtle argument will be advanced with regard to the lunch break, but it is one that has passed me by. We must start to behave in a rational, working way.

Lord Denham: The "rational, working way" according to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is that which he defines as a natural way. But what both he and his noble and learned friend are asking for is to enable Members of the House who may live far away to finish on a Thursday afternoon. However, while that is a perfectly valid request, it does not compare like with like. What we seek is that those undertaking outside work on a Thursday morning should be able to carry out their duties in this House during the afternoon. The noble Lord wants noble Lords to work during the morning so that they can get away in the afternoon, home to their beds.
	The noble Lord has spoken of "taking the House seriously". Members of this House have always taken the House seriously.

Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I have been provoked into doing so because I made heard the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, so many times before. I have not heard it in this House, but in another place. When I entered the House of Commons 32 years ago it had in it a large number of people who had outside knowledge, outside experience and outside work. Increasingly, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was made there. One of the consequences is the other place as it exists today. Its Members have practically no outside interests. Indeed, they have voted themselves increased pensions on the grounds that they have no outside experience and are therefore unlikely to get other employment.
	If the noble Lord's principle were to be followed here, there would be similar consequences in this House. Instead of possessing the wealth of experience from which we have benefited—and still benefit—it would become more and more like the other place.
	I am coming to the end of my outside working interests and I have no strong views about the issue, but the noble Lord, Lord Peston, should not think that no consequences will flow from his kind of attitude. His speech is not new, and there is the evidence of the other place to tell us what will be the result.

Lord Elton: Does my noble friend agree that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston—so often heard before—heralds the creation of a Parliament consisting entirely of a political class, which will be distinct from the rest of the country, not understanding and eventually not trusted by the people?

Lord Crickhowell: I agree entirely with my noble friend. I shall leave the matter there.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I believe that the Leader of the Opposition said that this had had a popular response from Members. Noble Lords on the opposite side of the Chamber, who claim to be democrats, may not believe in focus groups, but the best focus group here is the membership. Some people have responded—not everyone—and we now have a benchmark. Given the option, which they never had before, of working potentially between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. on a Thursday night or from 11 a.m. onwards, the Members have chosen to do this. For the life of me, I cannot see why Members opposite are so tenacious in defending the status quo come what may.
	This is a recommendation of a committee on which we were all represented. It has come from the Leader's Group and from the Procedure Committee. I said earlier that I trust the usual channels. They seem to have been besmirched by those who were themselves part of the usual channels at one time but who are now saying there is something dirty and unclean about their work. That is not true. They do their best and are responsible for their parties.
	From my experience in another place and here it is quite clear that the problems, not only for the Government but also for the Opposition, of maintaining a full House on a Thursday night are getting worse—not least because of the passage of time and what is happening in the other place. We do not affect what happens down there but it is a fact of life that the dining rooms in the other place are empty after seven o'clock on a Thursday night. The House is not dead, but it is very, very quiet.
	Why do we not trust the usual channels, the Leader's Group and the Procedure Committee to carry out an experiment? As I understand it, this will be for an experimental period. It may work out. I said earlier that people are hinting darkly and snidely that this is being done to benefit the Government. It may be that the Government will find that they are not the greatest beneficiaries of these changes, but in 2002 we should at least drag our procedures out of the 19th century and into the 21st century.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I had no intention of joining in this debate, but have been encouraged to do so by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which I still believe were supporting his self-interest.
	Let me make it clear that, as a retired person, it would suit me very well if the hours proposed were to be adopted, just as it would suit the noble Lord, Lord Peston. But my concern is with the effect of this proposal on the House as a whole. Once we introduce morning Sittings, it will not be long before we have morning Sittings on other days as well.
	The great advantage of this place is that its Members are active in business, in medicine and in other professions. They have various kinds of jobs which require them to work for part of the day. They then commit themselves to come here for the latter part of the afternoon and the early part of the evening. I believe that we shall lose sadly if we find ourselves in a situation where we are working a normal working day, and if when approached those people say, "I am terribly sorry. I believe that I have something to offer, but I am afraid I cannot possibly commit myself to those hours".
	I support the point that the commitment made by existing Members of this place was made on the basis of the hours that then existed. It is not a question of commitment. I believe that those on all sides of this Chamber are totally committed to what this House can achieve. However, if we start sitting in the mornings, we shall lower the standard, or lose many people who might otherwise be willing to come here. It is for that reason, and certainly not out of self-interest, that I shall support the amendment.

Lord Marlesford: Apropos the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, quite apart from the fact that he seeks to paint matters all black and white when most of the time they are grey, and most of the time it is possible to fit in both activities, is he not aware—as a distinguished economist, I am sure he is—that the demographers have worked out that, because of the changing age pattern of this country, it is desirable and indeed necessary that we should continue to work until we are 72 in order to earn money to pay taxes to keep those who are over 72. Some of us who have not yet reached that stage are trying to make our contribution.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I agree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. She said, and I marked her words, that duty to the House should take precedence over individual convenience.
	On a number of occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, referred the idea that the proposals were what I wanted. I remind him and the noble Baroness that this proposal was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and he gave his reasons for doing so: it is a compromise; the reason for having the break from 1.30 to 3 p.m. was that a large number of colleagues said that they wanted to attend their party meetings during that time; therefore, that was the agreement. It was the most popular outcome, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rightly says, when opinions were canvassed.
	The idea of having a questionnaire was not mine either. In fact, I was horrified to think that people's views might actually be taken. But on this occasion the questionnaire was unambiguous. This was the popular way of dealing with matters.
	A number of other Peers made the point that they had commitments in the mornings but wanted to be here for Question Time—hence the proposed timetable on page 7 of the Procedure Committee's report. That is the reason why Question Time remains at three o'clock.
	I take the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I shall give careful attention to the points he has made. I personally advise Members of the Committee to accept the proposal made by the Procedure Committee as outlined here today. It is on a trial basis for two Sessions. Let us see whether we can make it work.
	I personally do value the variety of experience that we have in this House. However, I also welcome the ability of the House sometimes to regenerate itself. We are simply offering that.

Lord Trefgarne: I believe that the arguments for and against these proposals have been fully canvassed. I think that I had better take the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 95.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]

Viscount Bledisloe: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
	Paragraph, page 7, line 17, at end insert—
	"Save in exceptional circumstances the Committee stage, the Report stage or the Third Reading of a public bill shall not take place during the above period of lla.m.-1.30p.m. unless it is expected that that stage of that bill can be completed wholly within that period."

Viscount Bledisloe: I understood that the Leader of the House was sympathetic to my suggestion. I hope that means that he will do his best to ensure that such business does not occur on Thursday mornings. On that basis, I am delighted not to move the amendment.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: In case there is any misunderstanding, I said that I would give careful attention to the suggestion. I cannot dictate the conduct of the House's business on my own.

[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Paragraph 27, page 8, line 17, at end insert—
	"None of the proposals in this report shall take effect until the Procedure Committee has received a full analysis of their impact on
	—the parliamentary works programme
	—the House of Lords Refreshment Department
	—Black Rod's office
	––staff in the House of Lords administration"
	The noble Lady said: On 21st May, at col. 697, I wondered what consultations had taken place with Black Rod and the superintendent of the Refreshment Department on sittings in September. I did not receive an answer, so I wrote to the Procedure Committee and asked what consultations had taken place with either of those persons.
	As far as Black Rod is concerned, I was concerned about repair and maintenance work to the Palace, for which it is necessary to have at least two clear months—probably longer—in the summer holidays. Extra weeks at Christmas and Easter are no use, because for serious structural work it is necessary to have a long unbroken period at a time when tradesmen are not on holiday.
	For the rest, it is not only a question of the Refreshment Department staff, but also the cleaners, the security staff, the Doorkeepers and Clerks, all of whose holidays will be affected. That is why I should like to know that a report will be received from all the departments concerned before any decision is taken for the House to sit in September. That applies also to Grand Committees, because they affect the House's staff, unless they can be arranged to sit somewhere else.
	I feel strongly about the staff and inconvenience to them regarding their holidays. We all know how willingly they return for emergency debates, such as on 14th September last year, and for the tributes to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and we are grateful to them. But that is no excuse for them to be imposed on. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins: The amendment is concerned with paragraph 27. In seeking to establish the way in which the committee's thoughts had developed on the issue, I looked at the appendix to the report. All one finds is that,
	"Paragraphs 7-28 were read, amended and agreed to".
	We have no idea whether they were all amended or what the amendments are.
	Presumably, this is a summary. As the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House pointed out earlier, the appendix contains extracts, not the full minutes of the proceedings. I asked on an earlier amendment why only extracts were provided and not the whole minutes of proceedings. The noble and learned Lord did not answer that question. Perhaps he will do so now.
	The noble and learned Lord also replied that the full version was in the Library. It is not. The Library staff are unable to find it.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My advice, which I am having re-checked, is that the minutes are in the Library. I have not examined them, but that was the advice that I was given in answer to the noble Lord's question earlier. That is why I replied in the way I did.
	The amendment would delay all reform until there had been a full analysis of the effects on the works programme and so forth. Your Lordships will remember that we had a very full debate on the subject on Amendment No. 2. It would be discourteous of me to rehearse the arguments again. I simply invite your Lordships to remember what was said earlier.

Lord Higgins: I still do not understand why we have only the extracts of the minutes and not the full minutes.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not have encyclopaedic experience of such matters, but as far as I know this is not uncommon.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I seem to recollect that on Amendment No. 2 the noble and learned Lord said that contractors would be given very long notice that the House would be sitting in September. I do not recollect him saying anything about notice that would be given to the staff. I am still not very happy about the issue, but in view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Crickhowell: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 22:
	Page 8, leave out paragraph 27 and insert—
	"27. We do not endorse, Group recommendation (l) that the House should be willing to sit in September and we recommend that the House should not normally sit in September."

Lord Crickhowell: I have two or three very brief comments. More than seven hours ago, I set out a number of issues that I thought ought to be looked at thoroughly before we started rising in mid-July and sitting in September. I leave those on the record.
	I have to be in an important Joint Committee of both Houses not at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning, but at 9 o'clock. I have no reason to wish to delay the proceedings of the Committee further. It would also be wrong to ask the Committee to vote on such an important issue when there was thin attendance late at night. We will have the opportunity to vote on any specific proposal for a September sitting. We have already been told that substantial notice will have to be given. The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Procedure Committee that at least six months' notice would be needed if the contractual arrangements were to be made satisfactorily.
	For those reasons, I do not intend to pursue the matter further this evening. If any other Member wishes to speak, they have an opportunity to do so.

[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	Report from the Select Committee reported without amendment; report received.

Royal Assent

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Finance Act, European Parliamentary Elections Act, Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act, Justice (Northern Ireland) Act, Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act, Export Control Act, Proceeds of Crime Act, Police Reform Act, Education Act, Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Act.

Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2002

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Insolvency Act 2000 provides small viable companies in financial trouble with a better chance of survival. It does that by allowing the company a short moratorium while a rescue proposal, in the form of a company voluntary arrangement, is put to its creditors.
	However, it is clear that, as the provisions in the Insolvency Act 2000 are expressed, some companies that noble Lords and I would not think of as small would also qualify to use the new procedure by virtue of what might be termed a "technicality". Those companies are often involved in particular types of specialist transaction involving very large amounts of money.
	That possibility has caused some consternation in the City where these types of deal are done. The last thing that the City wants is for those types of company to be eligible for a CVA moratorium. If they were, this valuable market would be seriously damaged and that would be to no one's benefit. Therefore, we have considered the matter very carefully and have concluded that we should bring forward these regulations to ensure that they cannot.
	In recent years, a significant market and expertise has developed in the City of London for securitisation and related bond issues. That demand is dependent on the fact that UK law, unlike that of much of the rest of the world, allows a lender or funder to take a floating charge over the assets of the borrowing company. That charge allows the lender to appoint an administrative receiver, more or less immediately, if things go wrong. His job is to get the lender's money back by realising the charged assets.
	Although we think it most unlikely that a company involved in such a transaction would be able to obtain a moratorium, if it did, the right to appoint an administrative receiver would be stayed for as long as the moratorium lasted. It has been impressed on us that that possibility would be likely to damage the attractiveness of the UK as a base for doing these types of deal, and that would have obvious unwelcome consequences for the City.
	The right to appoint an administrative receiver is also important in the structured finance market—again, because of the level of control that it brings.
	As a consequence of the Public Finance Initiative and public/private finance partnerships, large amounts of private money are now being made available to fund public projects. The availability of funds in that market is dependent on the financier having the right to step in and take over the contract if the borrower fails to deliver. That could not happen sufficiently quickly if the moratorium was in place. Clearly, we could not contemplate the idea of essential public services being interrupted in that way.
	Under the eligibility criteria, the holding company of a large group of companies might also qualify for a moratorium, particularly if all the group's trading is done by its subsidiaries. For such a company to qualify for the moratorium when it is worth millions of pounds runs counter to our policy. It would also be bizarre if a company with a liability of £10 million or more could qualify for a small company moratorium simply because it otherwise satisfied the eligibility criteria set out in the Act.
	Your Lordships will appreciate from what I have said that we obviously need to make sure that those particular kinds of larger company do not qualify for a company voluntary arrangement moratorium intended only for the genuinely smaller company. They are clearly not the kinds of company that we were aiming to help or that should be able to avail themselves of a CVA moratorium.
	I am sure that on all sides we shall be able to see the sense of excluding them and agree that no harm whatever will be done to our principal aim of giving the smaller company a short breathing space in which to mount a rescue attempt. Once these regulations are made, we shall be able to make the company voluntary arrangement moratorium available to those who really need it—small companies in need of a breathing space.
	It is normal practice for a Minister inviting Parliament to approve a draft statutory instrument to volunteer a view on its compatibility with the convention rights as defined in Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I confirm that in my view the provisions of the draft order are compatible. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, we are happy to support the aims of these regulations but are less happy with the tight criteria defining the firms that qualify for a short moratorium while a rescue proposal is produced. Why have these regulations not been encompassed in the Enterprise Bill now being considered in Committee by this House?

Lord Roper: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the proposed regulations. Those of my noble friends who know more about these matters than I have told me of their considerable importance and use for the purposes to which the Minister has drawn attention so far as the City of London is concerned. We therefore hope that the regulations will come speedily into effect.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their responses to these regulations. I could have been asked more legitimately by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, why it has taken us so long, rather than why we are not delaying it a little further. The truth is that we discovered from the high powered lawyers in the City only at a very late stage of the passage of the Insolvency Bill 2000 that there were potential problems with companies which theoretically met the definition of a small company, and therefore were eligible for a moratorium, but in fact had a very much greater importance than a similarity with larger companies.
	It has taken us this length of time to negotiate with those in the City who are adept in producing new financial vehicles, including those that I have described, and it is a matter of regret that we have taken so long to do that. The Enterprise Bill will not become law until later this year. For the sake of these simple regulations, it seemed preferable to enact these measures now, in July, rather than suffer a further delay. I beg to move.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2002

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am pleased to present these amending regulations to the House. They are concerned with increasing the main and development rates of the national minimum wage.
	The minimum wage is now recognised as an outstanding success. The Government have helped about 1.5 million low paid workers without causing any significant problems for the economy. Businesses cannot now pay the poverty wages of £2 and £2.50 per hour that were so widespread five years ago, and the vast majority of employers are complying with the minimum wage.
	The minimum wage has been successful because the Government have adopted a partnership approach, which involved setting up the independent Low Pay Commission with a membership drawn from both sides of industry as well as academic members. This has ensured that its recommendations have been well judged to make a substantial difference for the low paid while remaining affordable for business.
	The commission last year made recommendations on rate increases for 2001 and 2002. The Government implemented the first part of the recommendations by increasing the main and development rates to £4.10 and £3.50 in October 2001. We are now proposing to implement the second part of the recommendation by further increasing the rates as recommended by the commission to £4.20 and £3.60 in October 2002.
	Is it safe to increase the minimum wage at present? The Government looked in April at the latest evidence across the overall economy and in the sectors most affected by the minimum wage. We did not see any significant rise in general unemployment and the indications were that employment in low-paying sectors is holding up. Our judgment is that economic conditions in the autumn of 2002 will support these increases.
	Are these increases too small? We need to remember that the recommendations in 2001 and 2001 came as a pair. Under our proposals, the main rate will have increased by 50 pence an hour since September 2001. That is equivalent to an extra £900 a year before tax for someone working 35 hours a week. Over the same period the development rate, which is for younger people, will have increased by 40 pence an hour, equal to an extra £725 a year before tax. These amounts will make a real difference for the low paid.
	The minimum wage is only one way in which the Government are helping low income workers. We are providing additional assistance through tax credits. In April 2003 we will be introducing the working tax credit which will, on its introduction, guarantee a family with one child and one earner working full time a minimum income of £237 a week.
	Finally, I want to address two concerns that have been raised in the House of Commons. First, some noble Lords may recall that the Government did not accept the commission's advice last year to extend the adult rate to 21 year-olds because of the uncertainty surrounding the possible impact on their employment prospects. The commission is free to look at this issue again if it wishes, but if it does we will want to look closely at the point about employment prospects.
	We are also aware of the concerns expressed by those in the care sector. The real interest issue here appears to be funding. The Chancellor has made it clear that resources for social services will increase on an average by a further 6 per cent per annum in real terms over the next three years. The Secretary of State for Health said yesterday that an extra £1 billion would be spent on social services for older people by 2006, including additional resources to cover higher care home fees. I commend the regulations to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, we do not oppose the rise which increases the main and development rates of the national minimum wage. The main rate increases are broadly in line with the rate of wage increases and the economy as a whole. The impact of the national minimum wage will not change significantly over time. There will not be a further step-change impact.
	While considering the increase, one must bear in mind that nothing must be done to damage businesses, jobs and the economy. The national minimum wage was controversial when it was first introduced. However, time has seen it work well. We hope that that will be the case if there is a serious downturn in the economy.

Lord Roper: My Lords, we agree with the Minister that the national minimum wage has proved itself. It was pleasing to hear from the Conservative Front Bench that it shares that view on a matter which was, at the time of introduction, controversial.
	It would be possible to have a longer debate today on some of the current issues of low pay and the fact that the national minimum wage is seen by some of the trade unions in the public sector as being unsatisfactory. However, in view of the hour I do not intend to distract the House too long on that matter.
	I was pleased that the Minister referred to the impact on the care sector and drew attention to the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the spending review and yesterday by the Secretary of State in his Statement. Clearly, there has been a serious problem and it would be more serious if it were aggravated by any increase, however small.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, will not be offended if I extend a particular note of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for his support. I know that the Liberal Democrats have supported these policies since the beginning, but it is fair to say that there were those who said when we first introduced the minimum wage that there would be—I shall not say "mass unemployment"—considerable economic problems.
	It is a tribute to the Low Pay Commission and those who worked on this over the period before and during the introduction of a national minimum wage that there have not been those problems. The national minimum wage is now a non-party issue. After all, a national minimum wage exists in almost all European countries and has existed for many years in the United States. It is an accepted part of public policy. We propose a logical and rational extension and updating of that accepted public policy. I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st July be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the regulations before the House today are concerned with the legislative framework for the setting of directors' pay. The subject is at the centre of the debate about effective corporate governance. On this issue directors face an obvious conflict of interest.
	The Government have made it clear that they do not support high rewards for mediocre or poor performance. Too often there continue to be cases—particularly with the financial results of the past few weeks and months—where directors are seen to have been paid excessive amounts when a company has not performed well. That is a matter of concern to shareholders and to employees who may lose their jobs in such circumstances. It is also damaging to the reputation of business within the wider community.
	That is why the Government have decided to take this action to strengthen the corporate governance framework. There is a clear need for shareholders to be fully informed so that they can make their own judgments and play their role effectively. These new regulations will increase transparency through greater disclosure on remuneration policy and strengthen the accountability of boards to their shareholders by a shareholder vote.
	The Government recognise that it is also very important that our major companies are able to attract, retain and motivate directors of high calibre to sustain and improve the UK's productivity and competitiveness in the global economy. We have consistently made it clear that we are not in the business of becoming involved with the setting of directors' pay in individual companies. What we wish to do is to create an open and effective framework within which pay can be set and disclosed, given the conflict of interest that directors face.
	More than six years ago now, the Greenbury report set out three fundamental principles in this area—accountability, transparency and performance linkage. The Government believe these to be the right principles, but they do not believe that the best practice framework has been successful in achieving adequate levels of compliance to these principles.
	The purpose of these regulations is to improve transparency, accountability and the linkage of pay to performance, in the setting of directors' remuneration. This will be achieved by amending Schedule 6 to the Companies Act 1985 to require companies to produce an annual directors' remuneration report; and by giving shareholders the right to vote on that report through the adding of a new section—241A—to the 1985 Act. Some of this is not new. It involves transposing existing listing rules requirements into the Companies Act. What is new is the improved disclosure of remuneration policy, linkage to performance and the annual vote by shareholders. The regulations will apply to quoted companies. These are companies which are incorporated in the UK and listed in the UK or in an EEA state, or on the New York stock exchange or NASDAQ.
	I shall now give a little more detail of the regulations. The specific requirements were arrived at after a detailed consultation on draft regulations. That was published in December last year and closed on 15th March this year. We received a substantial response to that consultation, which included—your Lordships will not be surprised to hear—a wide range of differing opinions. Balancing those opinions has proved difficult, but the Government believe that the changes we have made to the draft regulations as a result of the consultation has led to better balanced legislation.
	The regulations require companies to publish for each financial year a directors' remuneration report. This report will be divided into two main parts: a policy section and a report section looking at directors' pay in the recent financial year in question. The policy section must include a statement on the company's future policy on directors' remuneration including details and an explanation of performance criteria or the lack of them for share options or long-term incentive schemes. It must also include an explanation of company policy on service agreements, their duration, notice periods and termination payments with an explanation of any significant award to a director whose services were terminated in the previous year.
	Remuneration committee details must also be provided: names of members, who advised them, and the nature of any other services provided to the company by those advisers. Finally, this part of the report must include a performance line graph which shows how the company has performed in comparison with an appropriate share market index.
	The review section must include full details of each director's pay package set out in tabular format broken down to show the amount of each element which forms the package. This includes full details of any share options and long-term incentive schemes and details of any significant award made to a director whose service agreement was terminated in the most recent financial year.
	The regulations also require that a resolution to approve the directors' remuneration report be moved at the annual general meeting. This vote will be advisory; in other words, it will not require companies to amend contractual entitlements. The Government nevertheless believe that the result of the vote will send a very strong signal to the directors and that the directors will wish to take notice of the shareholders' views and to respond accordingly.
	Overall, these regulations reflect a balanced approach to creating an appropriate framework for the setting of directors' remuneration. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st July be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, like the Institute of Directors, we broadly welcome the Government's proposed regulations which we hope will give greater transparency on directors' pay. We are not certain how much difference it will make in practice; only time will tell. I, too, agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it is not unusual for directors to have been paid excessive amounts which are difficult to justify when their companies are performing badly. That should not detract from justified high remunerations when directors are seen to have performed well and have benefited the company, shareholders and employees.
	It is important that shareholders are able to hold directors accountable. I hope that the regulations will increase the transparency and accountability and enable shareholders to link pay to the performance of directors as the Greenbury report seeks to do.

Lord Roper: My Lords, from these Benches we, too, welcome the proposals. There has been a series of parliamentary Questions in recent months on these issues. The proposals seem a rather good balance in order to ensure that there is transparency to an appropriate extent and to deal with some of the somewhat excessive remarks which have been made—sometimes informed and sometimes ill-informed—in the past.
	Having information available to shareholders, making a responsibility for shareholders to come to a conclusion on these reports seems a sensible solution. We welcome them.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. I commend the regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in moving that the draft regulations be approved, I speak also to the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (Amendment) Regulations 2002.
	The Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 will transpose the Fixed-Term Work Directive and prevent fixed-term employees from being less favourably treated than comparable permanent employees in terms of pay and pensions. The regulations will protect Britain's 1.2 million fixed-term employees. They will help us to create high performance workplaces where all employees are valued. They will also promote diversity by making fixed-term work pay, encouraging those who cannot or do not wish to take permanent work to participate in the labour market.
	The Government consulted extensively on the regulations. We held a consultation on the implementation of the fixed-term directive in spring 2001 and a further consultation on the draft fixed-term employees regulations earlier this year. We published a response to the first consultation this January and to this year's consultation yesterday. Guidance on the draft regulations is also available on the Department of Trade and Industry website. The regulations provide that fixed-term employees shall not be treated less favourably than similar permanent employees, unless the treatment is objectively justified. That requirement applies to all employment conditions, including pay and pensions. The 2001 consultation revealed evidence of pay disparities between fixed-term and permanent employees that the regulations will address.
	When assessing whether equal treatment has occurred, the regulations allow employers to compare a fixed term employee's overall package of conditions with that of a permanent employee. That will allow employers to provide higher up-front rewards in return for reduced benefits elsewhere. The regulations also allow employers to compare the conditions of their fixed-term and permanent employees term by term. If employers give certain benefits to their employees after a certain period of service, they should give those benefits to their fixed-term employees after the same qualifying period, unless a different period is objectively justified.
	The regulations limit the use of successive fixed-term contracts to four years, unless the use of further fixed-term contracts is justified on objective grounds. That will prevent people from being employed on a string of fixed-term contracts in what is really a permanent job. Where a fixed-term contract is renewed beyond the four-year limit and the renewal is not objectively justified, it will be treated as a contract for an indefinite period. We believe that that measure will have a positive impact in some sectors, including higher education, where the use of fixed-term contracts has increased.
	The regulations allow employees or their representatives and employers to adapt the mechanism limiting the use of successive fixed-term contracts according to accepted practices in different sectors. Employers and employees can increase or decrease the four-year limit or agree a different way to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts via collective or workforce agreements.
	We believe that the law, as well as employers, should not treat fixed-term employees less favourably than similar permanent employees without good reason. The regulations amend provisions that we believe provide for less favourable treatment. For example, the Employment Rights Act 1996 allows fixed-term employees to waive their rights to redundancy payments. Permanent employees cannot do that. The fixed-term regulations will remove that redundancy waiver. They will also make sure that all fixed-term employees have the right to statutory sick pay, guarantee payments and payments on medical suspension after the same qualifying period as permanent employees. Fixed-term employees on contracts for a task will also be given the same statutory rights as permanent employees with the same period of service.
	I turn to the two amendments to the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. Those regulations make it unlawful for employers to treat part-timers less favourably than comparable full-timers in their terms and conditions of employment, unless different treatment can be objectively justified.
	The first of those amendments is a consequential amendment required by the fixed-term regulations that I have described. It will allow part-timers on fixed term contracts to compare themselves with full-timers on permanent or fixed-term contracts. Currently, fixed-term part-timers can make a comparison only with fixed-term full-timers, while permanent part-timers can compare themselves with permanent full-timers. Permanent part-timers are much more likely to find a comparator, because of the comparatively small number of fixed-term employees.
	The second amendment to the part-time workers regulations is a result of the House of Lords judgment in Preston v Wolverhampton Healthcare Trust. Regulation 8(8) of the current part-time workers regulations provides that the remedies that a tribunal orders, where it has upheld a complaint from a part-timer for equal access to an occupational pension scheme, can go back no further than two years. The two-year time limit was included to ensure consistency with the limit in equal pay and pensions legislation that the Preston judgment overturned. In the light of that judgment, it is being removed. Its removal also makes the part-time workers regulations consistent with the fixed-term employees regulations, which have no such time limit.
	We intend that both sets of regulations will come into force on 1st October. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am sorry for intervening, but I believe that the regulations are slightly more problematic than those we discussed earlier. I was under the impression that the Government were not entirely happy with the regulations, which, after all, will cost British business a so far unquantified amount of money. We do not have an exact figure, but it is certain that they will cost more. I declare my interest as director of a small publishing company that uses part-time workers.
	I cannot see that loading extra costs onto employers of part-time workers will add anything to the competitiveness of British industry. After all, there already seems to be a good balance between part-time workers and full-time workers. People work part-time because they want to. They have reasons of their own for doing so; it may be for family reasons or because they have a business of their own. That works well, and I am not sure that this is the right way to approach the matter.
	Did the Government approve this in the Council of Ministers or did they oppose it? I do not believe that the move is fully backed by the Government. Was it imposed by qualified majority voting? It will add to the costs of British business, particularly small businesses, even though we hear at every Budget and spending review that the Government are in favour of small businesses. It will add to the cost, without adding any benefit to British industry or to the people who will be affected by it—the companies or the part-time workers. As I said, most part-time workers choose to be part-time workers.
	The imposition of all these regulations on British business has reduced our competitiveness. Five years ago, we were the fourth most competitive economy; the most recent figures show that we have slipped down to the relegation zone and are now the 12th most competitive economy. We are down among our European competitors, around the Sheffield Wednesday mark. Is that what the Government want? Do they want British industry and business to become less competitive? That is what is happening.
	I am not convinced that this is the right way to go. Will the Minister say whether the Government are in favour? Was the change imposed on them? What will be the cost to industry?

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, we support any legislation that aims to stop abuse of the fixed-term contract system. To that end, we support the regulations.
	It is interesting to note that the greatest offenders are in the public sector—the health service and the higher education sector. I am sure that many would agree that it is ridiculous that the Government have had to introduce legislation to enable themselves and the public sector to get their house in order. I also note that it may be the case that not all other EC member states have implemented the legislation. Will the Minister tell us which countries have not, to date, done so?

Lord Roper: On these Benches, we welcome these important regulations and the assistance to fixed-term employees, both full-time and part-time. We also welcome the Government's acceptance of their obligations under the Social Chapter. In particular, we welcome the fact that the Government have provided us with an extremely helpful transposition note on the EC Fixed-Term Work Directive, which enables us to see how the directive is being introduced. It is very interesting that Council directive 1999/70 EC of the 28th June was concluded initially among the social partners—one of the very remarkable ways in which the European Union works forward. It was a collaboration between the Europe TUC, UNICE and CEP, which led to this particular agreement.
	Having said that, I associate myself with the two questions raised about the impact of this legislation on our competitiveness. One of the advantages of having a European directive is that, in principle, a level playing field is established so that all European countries are operating on the same basis. If that is the case, and if all our partners are introducing this, it ought not to affect our competitiveness adversely. Therefore, the question as to whether or not the other European Union countries are introducing this particular directive is of considerable importance. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
	Looking through the terms and conditions of employment as regards the fixed-term employees' regulations, I was especially interested to see the provision in Regulation 15 for the staff of your Lordships' House. In such regulations, it is rather unusual to find mention of the House of Lords staff—a reference that gives them a particular position. In his response, perhaps the Minister can explain to those of us who are not as familiar with these matters as we might be why it is that the staff of this House have to be specifically referred to in such regulations.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may join my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke in failing to welcome these instruments. In doing so, I should declare an interest as chairman of what, I suppose, could be called a medium-sized enterprise—one which, from time to time, employs both part-time and fixed-term workers. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm to the House whether these regulations are made under single market legislation, in which case they are the fault of the previous Conservative government, or whether they are made under the social chapter, which is my understanding. If the latter is the case, the fault lies fairly and squarely at the door of the present Labour Government.
	I should also like to know which way the Government went in these negotiations; for example, whether they attempted to avoid them or whether they welcomed them with the zest displayed in introducing them tonight. I should have thought that these regulations are very likely—indeed, in some cases, certain—to result in less fixed-term and part-time workers being employed, especially in medium and small-sized enterprises. I have in mind fixed-term and part-time workers who could eventually develop into full-time workers if they proved satisfactory, and, indeed, if they wished to do so. I understand that there is a small reverse of that coin to which the Minister referred. But I should have thought that the overriding effect will be to produce less employment.
	As we are taking these two sets of regulations together, perhaps I may point out that in the Explanatory Memorandum of each instrument there is a regulatory impact statement, which, to say the least, is somewhat coy. Both say that the regulatory impact assessments were published some time ago and that they are available from,
	"Employment Market Analysis and Research, Room UG95, Department of Trade and Industry",
	and so on. I regret to say that I have not had time to pursue that avenue. I simply ask the Minister: what is the Government's estimate of the cost to the economy of these two instruments? Above all, can he say what the cost will be to small and medium-sized enterprises?
	Further, can the Minister say how the Government can pretend that they favour small and medium-sized industries when they nod through this sort of legislation, which, I suspect, will cost billions of pounds as time goes on, at this hour of night? Surely this is the very worst kind of European Union regulation, entirely consistent with the constant encroachment by the Union into our competitive position worldwide. On that I would take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Roper, when he remarked that it is "all right" because all the other countries of the European Union will go along with this nonsense and we shall not be disadvantaged.
	But the United Kingdom is a global trading economy. What matters is how the regulations will destroy our competitive position worldwide, in particular against the Americans and the economies of the Far East, where of course the majority of our trade still lies. There cannot be any doubt that this kind of regulation compromises, has compromised and will continue to compromise inward investment and our global trading position.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's replies to the questions that have been put to him by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and myself. However, I have to say that I do not think that this kind of thing can be nodded through, given the immense damage that it will cause to the British economy and our worldwide position, in particular at this time of night.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am slightly surprised at the last comment made by the noble Lord, to the effect that the regulations are being "nodded through". They are being given proper parliamentary consideration. If the House has been keen on discussing its internal arrangements until a late hour, that is not the fault of the Government. We proposed a series of perfectly straightforward reforms to the working practices of the House which could and should have been agreed in a quarter of an hour. The fact that the reforms were debated for so long is not our responsibility.
	No restriction has been placed on any noble Lord who wishes to take part in the debate. Indeed, I would have been glad to welcome a quarter of those noble Lords who took part in the navel-gazing in which we have indulged for the past eight hours to contribute to this debate. I shall attempt to put to rest the fears expressed by noble Lords.
	I turn first to the issue of the European dimension of these regulations. As I made clear in my opening speech, the regulations implement a directive. I should confess straightaway that we should have implemented the directive by 10th July of this year; if anything, we are late. However, there is no question of us implementing the directive when others are not doing so. Germany transposed on 1st January 2001 and France transposed earlier this year. Almost all European countries have implemented, while one or two others are bringing forward legislation according to their own constitutional arrangements, as is the case for the UK Government.
	I was asked whether the regulations are being implemented under the social chapter, which is the fault of the Labour Government, or under previous arrangements which were the fault of the Conservative government. They have been made under the social chapter. I make no apology for that. The fixed-term directive and the part-time directive were negotiated by the social partners, including representatives of UNICE; that is, the employers of Europe—of which the CBI is a member—as well as with representatives of European trade unions. That is a proper way for these matters to be negotiated in Europe. I should have thought that the Opposition would have welcomed those procedures.
	The noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Willoughby de Broke, appeared to suggest that enormous costs would attach to the regulations, in particular with regard to part-time workers. Our regulatory impact assessment indicates that the costs will be extremely small. The average costs to businesses are between £58 and £125 a year. That equates to between £1 and £2.40 a week. It is true that the main costs will fall on the public sector, which uses most fixed-term contract employees.
	I neglected to say that the regulations are not imposed by qualified majority voting. We agreed to the part-time work directive. We believe that it will help promote equality, between men and women in particular. We certainly have no objection whatever to what has been done and we have no hesitation in implementing the regulations.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, on the question of costs, are the figures of £58 to £125 per employee per annum? What is the total cost to the economy and small business?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is the average to the employer. It includes a large number of small businesses. The cost to large businesses would be significantly more.
	I wish to go further. It is being ignored that the use of both fixed-term and part-time contracts has been an attempt by some employers—including employers in the public sector—to evade the proper regulation and protection of workers in this country. I gave the example in my opening remarks about higher education. It is notorious that those entering an academic career suffer for many years a series of fixed-term contracts. It takes them a long time to get qualified in the first place; it takes them even longer to get out of fixed-term contracts, during which time they accumulate no pension rights or any of the other rights of permanent workers. That is an abuse. That is why it is restricted to a period of four years. If the Association of University Teachers were here I am sure that it would agree wholeheartedly with what I have said.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, are we dealing with both statutory instruments together? My quarrel is not with the fixed-term employees regulations—I have no knowledge of them—but with the part-time workers directive. Does the Minister believe that the introduction of the directive will make British business more competitive or less competitive? It is quite important.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are dealing with the two. I made that clear in my introduction. I was going to come on to defend the protection for part-time workers. Having defended the protection for fixed-term workers I want to defend the protection for part-time workers, which I believe to be helpful to our competitive position.
	Perhaps I may take as an example the position of women who want to go back to work after childbearing. There are two basis on which they can go back. First, they can go back on an hourly basis, under which they have no particular rights and do not accumulate pension benefits, holiday benefits and so on. The other basis is for them to go back on one or two days a week—in other words, on a one-fifth or two-fifths time basis. Surely it is much better to be on a proper part-time basis and to continue to pay into a pension and to have proper employment rights than it is to be on a casual labour basis. Surely it is right for all of us, in social, economic and competitive terms, to have a workforce where everyone is protected as far as possible. To have a workforce in which there is an excuse for employers to cut out of protection those who are on fixed-term or part-time contracts is, to my mind, an abuse, whether it is in the public or private sectors. I have no hesitation in saying that it is right that that kind of situation should be dealt with by these regulations.
	As to why they cover House of Lords staff explicitly, I understand that the position, particularly with the part-time regulations, is that they have always specifically covered House of Lords staff. There must be something about their conditions of employment which makes them different from others. But if noble Lords really want to know, I shall gladly write to them.
	Fundamentally, we are talking about the economy, and in particular about small businesses; and we are talking about the justification for extending employment protection—which is accepted as being correct, right and proper for permanent workers. The costs will be negligible. There will be less impact on small businesses than on larger businesses because they are less likely to employ fixed-term workers, and the benefits to business as set out in the regulatory impact assessment, including the benefits in terms of training, are very significant. I have no hesitation in commending these regulations to the House.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I was hoping that he might be able to answer my question; namely, which EU member states have not implemented this legislation? He covered the point by saying "nearly all". I realise that it is late in the evening—or getting on for early in the morning. Perhaps he could write to me later and let me know the names of those EU member states.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is required of all member states. Every country should have done it by 10th July. I gave the examples of France and Germany, which have already done it. I am not even certain that there is any state that has not implemented the proposal. I shall give the provisional answer that everyone has implemented it, or is in the course of doing so, and if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord about it.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the costs of these two statutory instruments to the economy and to business in general will be negligible. I simply cannot believe that. Of course, the costs to big businesses will be higher than those to small businesses, but big businesses can often carry such costs more easily. Before we let these regulations through, we really should have a precise answer and not merely rely on this very coy regulatory impact assessment in the two Explanatory Memoranda. We should know what the cost will actually be to our economy and to business. I cannot believe that it will not be pretty large.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are strict rules for what is to be contained in a regulatory impact assessment. It is no good describing it as "coy". A regulatory impact assessment sets out the costs and benefits. The regulatory impact assessment to these regulations does exactly that: it sets out the costs, some of which I have quoted. I have not gone to the extent of quoting the benefits in terms of the inclusion in a coherent and modern labour market of a vast number of people who are on fixed-term and part-time contracts and who are of huge benefit to employers. As an employer, I used to employ people on part-time contracts for exactly the reason that I have set out. It is enormously beneficial to British industry that there should be this addition to the labour force of people who benefit from the protection which exists for full-time and for permanent workers. I commend the regulatory impact assessment which has been published, a full version of which is available on the DTI website. It sets out the costs and benefits and comes to the conclusion—this has to be attested to by a Minister of the Crown—that the benefits outweigh the costs. I stand by that attestation.

On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 2.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 noble Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order 57 I declare the Question not decided and that the debate thereon stands adjourned.

Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Bill [HL]

Returned earlier from the Commons agreed to.

Export Control Bill

Returned earlier from the Commons with the Lords amendments in lieu of a Lords amendment to which the Commons had disagreed agreed to without amendment.

Proceeds of Crime Bill

Returned earlier from the Commons with the Lords amendments in lieu of certain Lords amendments to which the Commons had disagreed agreed to without amendment.

Police Reform Bill [HL]

Returned earlier from the Commons with the amendments to certain Commons amendments agreed to without amendment.
	House adjourned at nineteen minutes past midnight.